The Irony Board: The 'Silenced' on FNC

I can't help laughing at all of the folks on the right who are up in arms about social media companies restricting their 'free speech' and complaining that they are being 'silenced' by Facebook, Twitter, You Tube, and others. 

Why laugh, you ask? I only know they're complaining about being silenced because they're going on Fox News and telling everyone about it. 

For example, here's California farmer and Medal of Freedom recipient Rep. Devin Nunes, speaking on Sunday Morning Futures, hosted by Maria Bartiromo on Fox News (emphasis added).

But it's more than the just the financial aspect of that. Republicans have no way to communicate. It doesn't even matter if you're Republican or conservative, if you don't want to be regulated by left-wingers that are at Twitter and Facebook and Instagram, where you get shadow-banned and nobody gets to see you and they get to decide what's violent or not violent, it's preposterous.

Yep - this is Devin 'frivolous lawsuit-filer' Nunes, the guy who sued Twitter because a parody account said mean things about him. But censorship is bad... and he gets to decide what's mean or not... Got it. 

And, the part about having no way to communicate? Saying that on a Fox News Channel (FNC) show, on not just the most-watched conservative network, but on the network that "crushed records and delivered the largest total day and primetime audience among total viewers in cable news history" in 2020, according to the Nielsen folks? Some irony there, right? 

And now, we've got this guy, Rep. Tom Kading, a state legislator from North Dakota, who is following in Nunes' footsteps. Speaking on Fox and Friends earlier today, Kading said he had drafted a bill back in December stating that

social media sites would be liable in a civil lawsuit for damages to a North Dakota resident "whose speech is restricted, censored, or suppressed," as long as it is not "obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable."

And, since he introduced the bill, "things have only gotten worse," he said.

I'm frankly shocked at what's happening to our country and censoring does not create unity, it does not help the situation of division in our country, and it does not de-escalate the situation. All it really does is make those who have been silenced dig in deeper and be more suspicious of what's going on.

He's right: censoring doesn't create unity, or de-escalate the situation. Neither does tweeting relentlessly and untruthfully about a stolen election, or that the media are the enemy of the people and everything they report that is not to your liking is fake news, or that everything is beautiful and perfect when the entire universe knows it's not, or that the pandemic is under control, or that those who disagree with you is not a real American, or that people who don't do your bidding deserve to be driven out of office, and so on.  

I'd suggest that suing social media companies also doesn't create unity, or de-escalate things -and, Kading notably doesn't offer anything that does do those things. Not only that, but are social media companies or traditional media companies, including FNC in the unity-creating business anyway

Kading also talked about some other risks.

If a website comes out and selectively publishes information or manipulates true information in order to create a certain desired narrative, this restrictive action can essentially amount to defamation.

And, there's the real irony - the selective publishing, the manipulation of the truth, the defamation he mentions. 

Kading, remember, was talking on Sunday Morning Futures, just one of the FNC shows that had to run a tasty disclaimer - excuse me, a 'fact checking story,' correcting each show's lies.

In a three-minute segment aired on three shows that previously played host to some of the more zany election fraud claims coming from Trump’s advocates—Fox Business’ “Lou Dobbs Tonight,” and Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo’s “Sunday Morning Futures” and Jeanine Pirro’s “Justice with Judge Jeanine”—Fox News appeared to retract allegations made against Smartmatic.

Dominion Voting Systems is not done yet, either; the company also warned Fox and others back in December that legal action is coming. 

Dominion Voting Systems, one of the targets of President Donald Trump’s baseless conspiracy theories about the election that he lost, has warned Fox News, major Fox personalities, other conservative media outlets, radio host Rush Limbaugh and conservative lawyers that defamation litigation against them is “imminent.”

The voting machine company this week has sent 21 letters to the White House, Fox News, its hosts Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Maria Bartiromo, the news outlets Newsmax, One America News Network, Epoch Times and others demanding they stop making defamatory claims about Dominion and that they preserve any documents they have relating to the firm.

Want even more irony? How about a settlement with the family of someone who was disparaged on the network ?

The Fox News Channel has reached a private settlement with the parents of the slain Democratic National Committee staffer Seth Rich. The network had baselessly reported in May 2017 that Rich leaked thousands of Democratic party emails to Wikileaks during the height of the 2016 presidential campaign. 

The story, reported by Fox News' Malia Zimmerman and retracted seven days later, also suggested without any evidence that Democrats might have been linked to the killing of the 27-year-old Rich, a crime that has not been solved to this day. In response to NPR's questions, a Fox News spokesperson tells NPR that Zimmerman is no longer with the network. 

"The settlement with Fox News closes another chapter in our efforts to mourn the murder of our beloved Seth, whom we miss every single day," Joel and Mary Rich wrote in their statement. "We are pleased with the settlement of this and sincerely hope that the media will take genuine caution in the future."

I don't know about you, but if I was worried about censorship and divisiveness and a lack of unity, I'd probably find a different network to help share my story than the original - and still the best - home of division and loose facts.  

TGIF 11/22/19

Here we go again -- the good week/bad week list - and a bountiful week it was!

I'm sure Senator Lindsey Graham (R-Trump) thinks he had a good week. He announced an investigation into his old friend Joe Biden. Graham's letter to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo (R-Kansas) requests certain records to determine he "played a role in the termination" of a world-renowned ineffective Ukrainian prosecutor "in an effort to end the investigation of the company that employed his son..."

Anyone know what Lindsey's quid pro quo is?

Graham's letter to Pompeo inexplicably notes that (emphasis added)

...on February 4, 2016, Hunter Biden began "following" then-Deputy Secretary of State Tony Blinken, a longtime advisor to Vice President Joe Biden, on Twitter, indicating that the two may have initiated conversations regarding Prosecutor General Shokin's investigation into Burisma...

Um, I just added Graham to the group of people I follow on Twitter. I'm pretty sure he doesn't think that he and I have "initiated conversations" about anything. I'm guessing Graham got his understanding of the Interwebs from Rudy Giuliani - and for that reason alone, I'm putting him on the bad week list.

Opening statements had a good and bad week. On the good side? The fact witnesses at the impeachment hearings; whether or not you agree with what they said, or believe them, they stated their cases clearly and for the most part, provided facts as they experienced them, even if that means some of what they had to say would be hearsay in a court of law. Kudos to those who appeared, and a Bronx cheer to those who can't decide on their own what's the right thing to do.

On the bad side? Adam Schiff and Devin Nunes. The former went overboard trying to lay the foundation for the witnesses that were to testify. The latter ridiculously suggesting that the Dems would have impeached George Washington for sending Supreme Court Justice John Jay to negotiate with the British.

If anyone would ever equate these two presidents, their emissaries, or their respective causes - hurting a political rival vs. trying to avoid a war - well, let's just leave it at that.

Questions also had a mixed week. During Wednesday's debate, we heard questions on new topics. For example, Sens. Klobuchar and Harris were asked to defend their family leave plans (three months and six months, respectively). Andrew Yang was asked what he'd do to ease the burden of high child care costs. Several of them got to talk about how they'd address the lack of affordable housing.  There were some silly questions, too -- there always are - but at least they got to talk about real issues faced by real people for a change.

During the impeachment hearings,we heard good and bad questions. We also heard some that, if we were watching a crime show on TV instead of our government in action, a witness could logically ask the Representatives to just say whether or not there was a question at all. But there were also times when the Dems failed to close the deal. Here are just a couple of examples:

• Trump and Zelensky haven't met at the White House, which is what Zelensky wanted as part of the 'deal' with Trump. Sure, they met at the UN, but that's not close to the same thing. The Republicans tried to pretend the UN meeting was an equivalent session, but everyone knows it was not - and none of the Dems pressed that point.

• When Ambassador Sondland testified that Trump wanted Zelensky to "do the right thing," we know that meant investigating Crowdstrike and the Bidens - that was the whole 'favor' part of the second call. The Rs focused on the Latin (no quid pro quo) - the Dems failed to focus on the English (do the right thing).

And finally, I'm going to suggest that the Pres of the U. S. had a bad week. Speaking to the pained group at Fox & Friends this morning, Trump said this  about former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch:

This ambassador, that, you know, everybody says is a wonderful, she wouldn't have my picture in the embassy. Okay she's in charge of the embassy. She wouldn't hang it. It took like  a year and a half or two years for her to get the picture up... This was an Obama person who didn't want to hang my picture in the embassy. It's standard is you put the president of the United States picture in the embassy. This was not an angel, this woman. She's an Obama person.

Never mind that the Washington Post reported on the absence of the portraits in September 2017 and again when they were finally released on Halloween. And never mind that the US Embassy in London also didn't have the president's picture hanging for months, either. Because, according to Lewis Lukens, who was a former acting ambassador to the UK and deputy chief of mission in London from 2016 - 2019, 

It took the White House almost 15 months to get official photos sent to embassies to hang. And we were instructed not to print other photos. 

TGIF everyone -- TGIF. 

In Case You Missed It (v11)

Ready for this week's recap?  Here we go!

In Sunday School, I spent some time listening in on Kentucky's Rand Paul on Meet the Press explaining what the issue is with the impeachment inquiry. Well, I should say, what the issues are - because he was all over the map on that, and Chuck Todd didn't help. Hearing a few minutes of the senator talking left me a bit confused.

So, fairness is the issue, except that it's not the issue,  it's getting into the head of the president, unless it's not that, it's a partisan attack on the results of the election. OK - fine -- let's go there, then, right Chuck Todd?

Well, let's see what happened. Did Chuck follow up?

Negative on that; the next question had nothing to do with Paul's answer, it had everything to do with giving the president cover. That's right - the question was whether a distinction should be made between Trump asking for a quid pro quo and his administration asking for one. You know, Mulvaney maybe?

It went on like that for a bit longer; fortunately, Connecticut's Rep. Jim Himes was there to add some sense to things. Check the post to see what Himes had to say. 

Monday's visit to the Update Desk closed the loop on a post I had done about Matt Beadnell, the Republican Onondaga County Comptroller and the allegations of  payroll theft (not double-dipping, which is what he called it) against Democratic Elections Commissioner Dustin Czarny.

It turns out that the Beadnell had estimated - grossly overestimated, that is - the hours that Czarny spent driving for Uber and Lyft, and the DA was not going to file any charges, because in some cases, an appearance is not in fact the reality. Beadnell was a bit retrospect in an interview with the local paper in advance of the election, and likely more than a bit disappointed after it. 

Beadnell admitted to the editorial board of the local paper that he was wrong to have notified the party boss about the audit, and said he's "gone back and forth" on whether he erred by not talking to Czarny - but making it look political was worse. He got the endorsement of the paper anyway, but Syracuse City Auditor Marty Masterpole won, becoming "the first Democrat elected to a major countywide office since 1991."

I also talked, in this Grains of Salt post, about the decision by Syracuse voters to have independent redistricting for Common Council districts. While the city was thinking ahead, the County Legislature did not make the same decision when the discussed it earlier this year. According to Legislature chair David Knapp,

We just felt it was adding another bureaucratic commission that really didn't have any teeth, to advise a commission that's already in place. In this really highly charged political environment we're in, finding nonpartisan groups is pretty tough these days. 

On the plus side? Read how most of the county legislators are now on board with this - including Knapp.

On Wednesday, I was considering the opening statements in the impeachment hearings from Committee Chair Adam Schiff in Part 1 and Ranking Member Devin Nunes in Part 2 of my Wondering on Wednesday post.

Schiff was long winded, taking us on a long and winding road to some questions, then landing here:

These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country American was to become, "A Republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?

Nunes was equally all over the map, reciting a long list of alleged offenses and misfires and attacks by the Democrats on the president, including this one, asking if we should

forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials; 

Fortunately, none have been shown, and we're all the better for it. Nunes and Schiff, the ultimate California odd couple, had a lot more to say; needless to say, so did I.

The Democrats are still hanging in, still sending emails, still desperate for money, still inching ever close to Iowa and New Hampshire, and still fighting folks who are buying their way in. We did, however, have a really good email of the week. Here's an excerpt.

I understand for many folks in both states this is a tradition that they hold very dear, and I have learned first hand that they take their role in vetting candidates seriously. But “this is how it’s always been done” isn’t ever a good reason to keep doing it.The current system does not give enough of a voice to people of color and it's long past time that we as Democrats practice what we preach and fix it. 

To be clear, this isn’t about which candidates voters in these states may choose, or have chosen in the past. This is about who gets to do the choosing. 

You can read who sent that one, as well as get some other news in this post from the Update Desk.

This week's TGIF focused mostly on the impeachment hearings, and the circus that surrounds them. We had gaslighting, lying, grandstanding, arguing, dumb questions, and more - and then we had the media trying to "report" on what was going on. It seems those folks are looking for a little more excitement from the witnesses, because apparently from a reality TV standard, these things are a snooze fest.

And yet Taylor and Kent failed - or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government and the atypically serious postures struck by lawmakers of both parties - by dropping no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions previously held behind closed doors.

Those words, from an NBC reporter,  prompted a slow burn.

So, instead, they should have changed their stories, to generate better headlines? Tweeted from their witness chairs to spark controversy? Pounded their shoes on the table, or Nicholsoned or something? Would that have been more 'pizzazzy' for everyone?

NBC wasn't the only offender - Reuters also 'contributed' to the conversation, which you can read in the post, and you can also see who else had a good or bad week.

Next week, we've got more hearings, which means we'll have more shenanigans, and we also have a debate.  Yay us!  

As always, I welcome comments on posts, and encourage you to subscribe so you don't miss anything - just look for the "Instant Gratification" box on the right sidebar. I promise you'll get posts and nothing but posts. 

See you next week.

TGIF 11/15/19

Where to begin with today's good week - bad week list?

How about that Browns/Steelers fight last night? I didn't watch the game and hadn't seen any news before I saw the video, so it was quite the shocker to see before breakfast this morning.  With quarter-million-dollar fines to both teams, player suspensions and fines already announced, I'm thinking this falls squarely in the bad week column.

And then, part of me thought about the people who make those 'cute' videos with images of president Trump's head superimposed on other people's bodies, attacking the media, or his enemies (John McCain and Hillary Clinton, among others) getting hold of this one and having Trump, I don't know, beating Rep. Adam Schiff over the head with a helmet or something. Because I can certainly see that happening.

Continuing in the bad week vein, I'd have to include a few reporters, including Jonathan Allen of NBC, who offered this:

But at a time when Democrats are simultaneously eager to influence public opinion in favor of ousting the president and quietly apprehensive that their hearings could stall of backfire, the first round felt like the dress rehearsal for a serious one-act plan than the opening night of a hit Broadway musical. 

Seriously? I guess maybe the Dems should call Randy Rainbow to come in a do a few beautifully crafted, snarky showtunes?

Allen also offered this, after talking about Ambassador Bill Taylor and diplomat George Kent delivering a 'wide-ranging discourse" on diplomacy and more (emphasis added),

And yet Taylor and Kent failed - or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government and the atypically serious postures struck by lawmakers of both parties - by dropping no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions previously held behind closed doors.

So, instead, they should have changed their stories, to generate better headlines? Tweeted from their witness chairs to spark controversy? Pounded their shoes on the table, or Nicholsoned or something?Would that have been more 'pizzazzy' for everyone?

Allen and NBC were not alone - Reuters reporters Jeff Mason and Patricia Zengerle offered this:

Democratic lawmakers tried their hand at reality television with mixed results on Wednesday as they presented arguments to the American public for the impeachment of a former start of the genre, Donald Trump. 

Unlike the best reality TV shows - not to mention the Trump presidency itself - fireworks and explosive moments were scarce, however.  

I'm guessing that Taylor and Kent will likely be making apologies to all Americans, letting us know they didn't realize that appearing under subpoena to provide testimony in an impeachment hearing should have been something done with bells on, or something. Besides, Kent was wearing a bow tie - what more fun can a person have (in contrast to the jacketless Jim Jordan)? Maybe an appearance on Sesame Street or something in the next week or so?

And, of course, I'm sure Rep. Schiff will reach out personally to the president's second son to make amends, because. as Reuters told us,

To the president's son, Eric Trump, it was a big yawn. 

I get that there's a component to this of making impeachment understandable to people, to voters,  just as there was in the Clinton hearings. And I'm sorry that there isn't an ejaculate-stained blue dress this time around. No - I'm really not sorry there's nothing as salacious here, unless of course you count Devin Nunes' opening statement on Wednesday.

Sticking with the impeachment for a little bit longer, I'm sorry that one of New York's own representatives, Elise Stefanik, is willingly participating in the game being played by Nunes and the rest of her party, instead of acting like a reasonable person. During today's hearing, Nunes attempted to yield the floor to Stefanik during what I'll loosely call 'leader time' - both of them knowing that she was not allowed to speak at that time.  Why? Because rules, that's why (emphasis added)

• Extended Questioning by the Chair, Ranking Member, and Committee Counsels. Pursuant to H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may conduct at the outset of each open hearing extended rounds of questioning for periods of up to 90 minutes, as determined by the Chair and split evenly between the two sides. As specified in H. Res. 660, the Chair and Ranking Member may not yield time to other Members during these extended question periods, though either may yield time to Majority and Minority Committee Counsels, respectively.

• A similar rule put in place initially by House Republican leadership in 1997 authorized committees to allow extended periods of time for the questioning of witnesses, in excess of traditional five-minute rounds. The 1997 revision also allowed staff to question witnesses at hearings. Under this approach, which was also adopted in subsequent Congresses, staff questioned witnesses during the Clinton impeachment hearings and in numerous other investigative hearings.

• As Chairman, I expect to yield extensive time to Majority Committee Counsel during the extended questioning periods permitted under H. Res. 660. After I announce the conclusion of extended questioning, Committee Members will be recognized for customary five-minute rounds pursuant to House Rule XI. 

I'm sure though, that this will meet the 'pizzazz' threshold for DC reporters, because it looks good that there's some fighting and finger-pointing and all that. What it mostly does, though, is show the willingness of the GOP to do whatever they can to attack the hearings.

Yay, us, or something.

On the good side of the ledger? One name out there: former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch, who received a standing ovation after her testimony today.  Texas Republican Will Hurd had this to say about her, after reciting a list of her awards and recognitions:

You're tough as nails and you're smart as hell. You're a great example of what our ambassadors should be like. You're an honor to your family, you are an honor to the foreign service, you are an honor to this country, and I thank you for all that you have done and will continue to do on behalf of your country.

I'd add the Roger Stone jury, as well.

The panel of nine women and three men deliberated for less than two days before finding Stone, 67, guilty on all seven counts resulting from his September 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee, which was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and the Kremlin’s efforts to damage Donald Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.

Perhaps Stone will get a Donald Trump tattoo to go with his Richard Nixon tattoo; it might help his efforts to get a pardon.

TGIF, everyone.

Wondering on Wednesday (v190) Part 2

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), of whom I am not fond, and Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), of whom I'm even less fond, presented their opening statements in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry. Let the wondering begin.

Schiff's statement is in Part 1. And now, the Republican. Seat belts on, I hope?

In a July open hearing of this committee following publication of the Mueller report, the Democrats engaged in a last-ditch effort to convince the American people that president Trump is a Russian agent. That hearing was the pitiful finale of a three-year-long operation by the Democrats, the corrupt media, and partisan bureaucrats to overturn the results of the 2016 presidential election. 

After the spectacular implosion of their Russia hoax on July 24, in which they spent years denouncing any Republican who ever shook hands with a Russian, on July 25 they turned on a dime and now claim the real malfeasance is Republicans' dealings with Ukraine. 

Years, they spent, he said - on July 24th! Time-travelling, I wonder? And then there was this traveling, through the personal insulted memory banks of Nunes:

In the blink of an eye, we're asked to simply:

• forget about Democrats on this committee falsely claiming they had "more than circumstantial evidence" of collusion between president Trump and the Russians;

• forget about them reading fabrications of Trump-Russia collusion from the Steele dossier into the Congressional Record; 

• forget about them trying to obtain nude pictures of Trump from Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials; 

• forget about them leaking a false story to CNN, while he was testifying to our committee, claiming Donald Trump, Jr. had colluded with Wikileaks; 

• and forget about countless other deceptions, large and small, that make them the last people on earth with the credibility to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political opponents.

'Hurl' - an interesting choice of words; wonder if Nunes was trying to be funny on purpose?

And yet we're now supposed to take these people at face value when they trot out a new batch of allegations. But anyone familiar with the Democrats' scorched-earth war against president Trump would not be surprised to see all the typical signs that this is just a carefully orchestrated media smear campaign. For example:

• After vowing publicly that impeachment requires bipartisan support, Democrats are pushing impeachment forward without the backing of a single House Republican;

• The witnesses deemed suitable for television by the Democrats were put through a closed-door audition process in a cult-like atmosphere in the basement of the Capitol, where the Democrats conducted secret depositions, released a flood of misleading and one-sided leaks, and later selectively released transcripts in a highly staged manner.

• Violating their own guidelines, the Democrats repeatedly redacted from the transcripts the name of Alexandra Chalupa, a contractor for the Democratic National Committee who worked with Ukrainian officials to collect dirt on the Trump campaign, which she provided to the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.

• The Democrats rejected most of the Republicans' witness requests, resulting in a horrifically one-sided process where crucial witnesses are denied a platform if their testimony doesn't support the Democrats' absurd accusations. Notably, they are trying to impeach the president for inquiring about Hunter Biden's activities, yet they refused our request to hear from Biden himself.

Because, Devin, Hunter Biden's actions are not relevant to the president's attempt to extort Zelensky into investigating Hunter's father - you do understand that, don't you? And you do know that, if you win back the House in 2020, you can investigate the Bidens to your heart's content?

• The whistleblower was acknowledged to have a bias against president trump, and his attorney touted a "coup" against the president and called for impeachment just weeks after his election.

Nunes is carefully ignoring the fact that the Intelligence Committee Inspector General acknowledge a potential bias  but still thought that the complaint was urgent and needed attention. See, the ICIG apparently can walk and chew gum at the same time...

• At a prior hearing, Democrats on this committee read out a purely fictitious rendition of the president's phone call with President Zelensky. They clearly found the real conversation to be insufficient for their impeachment narrative, so they just made up a new one.

On this point, no wondering needed: Schiff was an idiot to do this. He knows it, you know it, I know it - everyone knows it.

And most egregiously, the staff of Democrats on this committee had direct discussions with the whistleblower before his or her complaint was submitted to the Inspector General, and Republicans cannot get a full account of these contacts because the Democrats broke their promise to have the whistleblower testify to this committee. Democrat members hid these contacts from Republicans and lied about them to the American people on national television.

Yes, it's true, we were told, the whistleblower reached out to the committee, and yes, it's true, we were told, that the staff member advised that whistleblower to become a whistleblower and report their concerns to the ICIG.  And yes, we were told, Schiff was aware of the conversation.  And yes, he was not forthcoming about it, and still hasn't been forthcoming, I believe.

And yes, it's true that the Dems tried to get testimony from the whistleblower behind closed doors, which the Republicans refused to do. And yes, the whistleblower made an offer to answer written questions for Republicans only - just them - which the Republicans refused.  And yes, the Republicans have said there was no need to talk to the whistleblower because she or he had no first-hand knowledge and so any testimony would be irrelevant.

I've noted before that the Democrats have a long habit of accusing of Republicans of offenses they themselves are committing. Recall that:

• For years they accused the Trump campaign of colluding with Russia when they themselves were colluding with Russia by funding and spreading the Steele dossier, which relied on Russian sources.

• And now they accuse president Trump of malfeasance in Ukraine when they themselves are culpable. The Democrats cooperated in Ukrainian election  meddling and they defend Hunter Biden's securing of a lavishly paid position with a corrupt Ukrainian company, all while his father served as vice president.

Saying that Hunter Biden's behavior is irrelevant is not the same as defending it. It's simply, honestly, irrelevant.

This last part is the best, though, from a wondering perspective.

Despite this hypocrisy, the Democrats are advancing their impeachment sham. But we should not hold any hearings at all until we get answers to three crucial questions the Democrats are determined to avoid asking: 

• First, what is the full extent of Democrats' prior coordination with the whistleblower and who else did the whistleblower coordinate this effort with?

The actions of the whistleblower are not relevant, really, because what was reported in the complaint has been pretty much corroborated by other people with first hand knowledge. So, I wonder, what is there to gain from attacking questioning the whistleblower about anything other than the complaint?

•  Second, what is the full extent of Ukraine's election meddling against the Trump campaign?

Again, I wonder, what does this discounted theory have to do with the president's attempted extortion?

• And third, why did Burisma hire Hunter Biden, what did he do for them, and did his position affect any US government actions in the Obama administration?

Which witness, I wonder, will shed light on that? Did Nunes suggest that Ukrainian energy executives testify?  Did they ask to have Joe Biden testify? Barack Obama? Charley Burisma?

These questions will remain outstanding because Republicans were denied the right to call witnesses who know the answers. 

What we will witness today is a televised theatrical performance staged by the Democrats. Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent—I’d like to welcome you here, and congratulate you for passing the Democrats’ Star Chamber auditions held for the last six weeks in the basement of the Capitol. It seems you agreed, wittingly or unwittingly, to participate in a drama. But the main performance—the Russia hoax—has ended, and you’ve been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.

I can't even wonder what he was thinking, attacking these two witnesses, in this way. And then, suffering the same fate as practically every commencement speaker ever, he moves to his next closing argument. 

I’ll conclude by noting the immense damage the politicized bureaucracy has done to Americans’ faith in government. Though executive branch employees are charged with implementing the policy set by our President, who is elected by and responsible to the American people, elements of the civil service have decided that they, not the President, are really in charge.

Thus, as we’ll learn in these hearings:

• After expressing skepticism of foreign aid and concern about foreign corruption on the campaign trail, President Trump outraged the bureaucracy by acting skeptically about foreign aid and expressing concerns about foreign corruption.

• Officials’ alarm at the President’s actions was typically based on second-hand, third-hand, and even fourth-hand rumors and innuendo.

• They believed it was an outrage for President Trump to fire an ambassador, even though the President has full authority to retain or remove diplomats for any reason at any time.

• Officials showed a surprising lack of interest in the indications of Ukrainian election meddling that deeply concerned the President at whose pleasure they serve.

• Despite all their dissatisfaction with President Trump’s Ukraine policy, the President approved the supply of weapons to Ukraine, unlike the previous administration, which provided blankets as defense against invading Russians.

By undermining the President who they are supposed to be serving, elements of the FBI, the Department of Justice, and now the State Department, have lost the confidence of millions of Americans who believe that their vote should count for something. It will take years, if not decades, to restore faith in these institutions.

This spectacle is doing great damage to our country. It’s nothing more than an impeachment process in search of a crime.

Nunes, and Schiff before him, did not do themselves any favors today. It's hard to imagine that I like either of them less than I did before, but I do.  No wondering on that, at all.

And I'm very glad we have tomorrow off. In the meantime, I'm a blogger in search of a drink.

Wondering on Wednesday (v190) Part 1

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), of whom I am not fond, and Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), of whom I'm even less fond, presented their opening statements in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry. Let the wondering begin.

First, the Democrat; I recommend having at least a six-pack of 5-Hour Energy available.

In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire. In the following years, thirteen thousand Ukrainians died as they battled superior Russian forces.

Earlier this year Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine on a platform of ending the conflict and of tackling corruption. He was a newcomer to politics and immediately sought to establish a relationship with Ukraine's most powerful patron, the United States. The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether president Trump sought to exploit that ally's vulnerability and invite Ukraine's interference in our elections? Whether president Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or US military assistance, on Ukraine's willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency? 

The matter is as simple, and as terrible as that. Our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself, and what kind of conduct or misconduct the American people may come to expect from their Commander-in-Chief.

The president is not the Commander-in-Chief of the American people - he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. I wonder why Schiff doesn't know that?

There are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a President. While the Founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over policy, they also made impeachment a constitutional process that the Congress must utilize when necessary.

The facts in the present inquiry are not seriously contested. Beginning in January of this year,  the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pressed Ukrainian authorities to investigate Burisma, the country's largest natural gas producer, and the Bidens, since Vice-President was seen as a strong potential challenger to Trump.

Giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was Ukraine, not Russia that hacked the 2016 election. The nation's intelligence agencies have stated unequivocally that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that interfered in our election. But Giuliani believed this conspiracy theory, referred to as "Crowdstrike," shorthand for the company that discovered the Russian hack, would aid his client's reelection.

Giuliani also conducted a smear campaign against the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. On April 29, as a senior State Department official told her that although she had "done nothing wrong," president Trump had "lost confidence in her." With the sidelining of Yovanovitch, the stage was set for the establishment of an irregular channel in which Giuliani and later others, including Gordon Sondland -- an influential donor to the president's inauguration now serving as Ambassador to the European Union  - could advance the president's personal and political interests. 

As noted in testimony today, ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. Whether he independently decides he no longer has confidence in his diplomats, or he's told by a crazed minion that he no longer has confidence isn't really the issue, as far as I can see.

Yovanovitch's replacement in Kyiv, Ambassador Bill Taylor, is a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran. As he began to better understand the scheme through the summer of 2019, he pushed back, informing Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent and others about a plan to condition US government actions and funding on the performance of political favors by the Ukrainian government, favors intended for president Trump that would undermine our security and our elections. 

Several key events in this scheme took place in the month of July. On July 10th, Ambassador Sondland informed a group of US and Ukrainian officials meeting at the White House that, according to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian president with Trump would happen only if Ukraine undertook an investigation into "the energy sector," which was understood to mean Burisma, and specifically, the Bidens. National Security Advisor Bolton abruptly ended the meeting and said afterwards that he would not be - quote - "part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this" - end quote. 

At least so far, Bolton is not scheduled to appear before the committee, his attorney's dangling of tantalizing teases notwithstanding. And I wonder about that. I'm guessing that Bolton is behind the foreplay, or at least supportive of it, otherwise why would his attorney be doing it? And Bolton's first-hand telling of the "drug deal" story would be significantly more impressive than Schiff's.

A week later, on July 18, a representative from OMB, the White House agency that oversees federal spending, announced on a video conference call that Mulvaney, at the direction of the president, was freezing nearly $400 million in security assistance authorized and appropriated by Congress and which the entirety of the US national security establishment supported. 

This next part comes from the alleged 'transcript' the White House released, the one that clearly states is not a transcript. The real transcript of the call? That's on the Donny Dearest server, where White House types put the stuff Trump says that is way more scary than what we hear him say with our own two ears.

One week after that, Donald Trump would have the now infamous July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. During that call, Trump complained that the US relationship with Ukraine had not been "reciprocal." Later, Zelensky thanks Trump for his support "in the area of defense" and says that Ukraine was ready to purchase more Javelins, an antitank weapon that was among the most important deterrents of further Russian military action. Trump's immediate response: "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

Trump then requested that Zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 "Crowdstrike" conspiracy theory, and even more ominously, look into the Bidens. Neither of these investigations were in the US national interest, and neither as part of the official preparatory material for the call. Both, however, were in Donald Trump's personal interest, and in the interest of his 2020 re-election campaign. And the Ukrainian president knew about both in advance - because Sondland and others had been pressing Ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election, Burisma and the Bidens. 

Anyone still awake? How's that 5-Hour Energy stuff working for you? Hope it's holding out, because Schiff is going to recite more testimony for us.

After the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the National Security Council's top lawyer. The White House would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters. 

In the following weeks, Ambassador Taylor learned new facts about a scheme that even Sondland would describe as becoming more insidious. Taylor texted Sondland, "are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"  

And now, let's all sit back and wonder about simpler things -- summer turning to fall, with a dose of insidiocity.

 As summer turned to fall, "[i]t kept getting more insidious," Mr. Sondland testified. Mr. Taylor, who took notes of his conversations, said the ambassador told him in a September 1 phone call that "everything was dependent" on the public announcement of investigations "including security assistance." President Trump wanted Mr. Zelensky "in a public box." "President Trump is a businessman," Sondland said later. "When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check"

 In a sworn declaration after Taylor's testimony, Sondland would admit to telling the Ukrainians at a September 1st meeting in Warsaw, "that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks?"

As I read this next part, the "get over it" part from Mick Mulvaney, part of me wonders if Schiff will ever get over any of this?

The president's chief of staff confirmed Trump's efforts to coerce Ukraine by withholding aid. When Mick Mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking; "We do that all the time with foreign policy... I have news for everybody: get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen." The video of that confession is plain for all to see.  

Some have argued in the president's defense that the aid was ultimately released. That is true. But only after Congress began an investigation; only after the president's lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint about quid pro quos. A scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain personal political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before it is fully consummated. In fact, the security assistance had been delayed so long it would take another act of Congress to ensure that it would still go out. And that Oval Office meeting that Zelensky desperately sought - it still hasn't happened. 

And, I read somewhere, the White House was basically backed into a corner as the money needed to be released before the end of the fiscal year on September 30th; the money was released on the 11th. I wonder why Schiff didn't mention that, if it's true?

Now, I think we're getting to the meat of the issue (I think):

Although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. The president has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.   

And, in this part, he makes it clear that the investigation is not just about attempted extortion of Ukraine, it now includes Trump's obstruction of Congress.

These actions will force Congress to consider, as it did with President Nixon, whether Trump's obstruction of the constitutional duties of Congress constitute additional grounds for impeachment. If the President can simply refuse all oversight, particularly in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be irrevocably altered. That is not what the Founders intended. And the prospects for further corruption and abuse of power, in this administration or another, will be exponentially increased.

This is what we believe the testimony will show - both as to the president's conduct and as to his obstruction of Congress. The issue that we confront is the one posted by the president's Acting Chief of Staff when he challenged Americans to  "get over it." If we find that the president of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conduction investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts - a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid - must we simply "get over it?" Is that what Americans should now expect from their president? If this not impeachable conduct, what is? Does the oath of office itself - requiring that our laws be faithfully executed, that our president defend a constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition so that we become no monarch - still have meaning? 

These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country American was to become, "A Republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?

Our sanity: can we, keep it?

Nunes is in Part 2.

Sunday School Extra Credit: 11/3/19

In yesterday's Sunday School post, we spent time with Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Andrew Yang, consistent with my promise to pay attention to the Democratic presidential candidates when they're making the rounds.

In addition to the candidates, a few key Republicans were also making appearances in the classrooms - House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy on Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan; Louisiana Rep. Steve Scalise on This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway on CNN's State of the Union with Dana Bash. Let's tackle them in order.

Brennan asked about strategy in light of the "damaging detail" that's expected to be shown in testimony likely to be released this week, and she asked who the Rs would like to see testify. There were lots of words, there was lots of interruption, but here's the gist of it. He wants to call Adam Schiff. Brennan seemed a bit incredulous, but McCarthy stuck to his guns.

Yes, I would. Because he is the only person who knows who this whistleblower is. He refers to himself as a Ken Starr, Ken Starr testified. How many times did he meet with the whistleblower? What did he talk to the whistleblower about? Because when the whistleblower even went to the inspector general he never mentioned that he went with Adam Schiff.

Remember what we're talking about today Margaret, the removal of the president of the United States. This should not be taken lightly. We should have all the facts. The public deserves the facts not something that's leaked. We're three weeks since the very first hearing inside there, the deposition. We still do not have the transcripts. You have members of Congress who just voted to justify what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on.

Brennan did not remind him that we have members of Congress who just voted against what has already happened without ever reading one word of what's gone on, and that the vote that was passed allows all of them to see what's gone on. And, of course, that Republican members of Congress are in the room listening to or participating in the depositions and it defies credulity that the Rs don't know exactly what's been said in those traditionally secret depositions.

Brennan also pointed out that the whistleblower's attorneys have offered to have their client answer written questions, under penalty of perjury, directly to Republicans on the Intelligence Committee without going through the Democrats. McCarthy's response?

Well, Margaret, I have never received that offer and I'm the lead Republican in the House.

When Brennan told him the offer was submitted to Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, McCarthy's answer was priceless.

Well, when was it submitted to him? because Devin had not told me about that prior to today.

Brennan said it was submitted Saturday night (not reiterating that was when McCarthy was in New York City attending a UFC event with the president). 

Well, Devin's in California, so let's see how they submitted. 

Right -- he was in California, the same state you represent -- and you were gallivanting around in NYC with the president, the subject of an impeachment that will come to you for a vote. Good to know.  

McCarthy pretended that the 'transcript' of the call is more information than the whistleblower has - which is almost certainly untrue, unless McCarthy has seen the actual transcript, which is on the secure server because it was so frightening? Potentially damaging? Embarrassing?

In the end, McCarthy stood firm on the demand, instigated and pressed by the president, that the whistleblower must come forward in person and show their ever loving whistleblowing face. 

I think democracy is too precious to think that somebody who's not on a phone call, that cannot stand before the American public, and answer the questions, that somehow we would change the course of that? And we're one year away from today. What are they so afraid of? What do they have to hide? Why wouldn't they release one item? 

Apparently, focusing on the whistleblower, instead of on the first-hand testimony provided by people who were on the call is all the strategy Brennan was able to get.

Scalise also toed the party line.

It’s all about reversing the results of the 2016 election. There are no high crimes or misdemeanors.

Stephanopoulos played a video clip of Deputy SecState John Sullivan indicating that "soliciting investigations into a political opponent, I don't think that would be in accord with our values" and asked if Scalise agreed with that statement. He said that wasn't what happened on the call, and there was some back and forth about that, whether it was Crowdstrike or Burisma or Biden. George asked again, "it's just a very simple question, do you think it's appropriate for the president to ask the Ukrainians or the Chinese, which he's also done in public, to investigate his domestic political opponents?"

Well, first of all on that call he was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents, he was talking about corruption relating to the 2016 elections.

We know that is not correct, because the summary of the call clearly mentions the Bidens. It's right there, on page 4.

So, again, we're supposed to believe what the Republicans call a transcript, except when it doesn't support their position.  Got it.  

Scalise also said he wanted the whistleblower to testify, because

There are many reports out there that the whistleblower actually worked for Joe Biden. That concerns a lot of people. There are also a lot of reports that Adam Schiff and his staff coached the whistleblower prior to the whistleblower report being released.

Ignore, we're basically being told, that the Intelligence Community Inspector General indicated that whatever prior relationship there was did not discount what he reported, and that what was reported presented an urgent risk.

Scalise also repeated the lie that Nixon and Clinton depositions were public. His comments only reinforce how afraid the Republicans are here.

Dare I move on to Conway? Sure, what the heck. Dana Bash announced the state of our union to be "in fighting mode." And right off the bat, we have Conway calling the summary memo of the phone call "the transcript" and right off the bat, I know we're going to have fun with this.

In the interest of time, I'm just going to highlight some of Conway's comments. These are in order, and are in response to different questions Bash asked.

We don't need Ukraine's help to beat Joe Biden, anymore than we needed help to help beat Hillary Clinton.

 Who needs Ukraine's help to beat Joe Biden?

I feel comfortable saying that he never mentioned 2020, quid pro quo, holding up aid, Joe Biden, his political rival.

And but for President Trump, there would be no kind of aid going to Ukraine right now. Under President Obama, he was like the MyPillow guy for Ukraine. He was sending pillows and blankets.

There's no evidence that Donald Trump did anything wrong. 

Why are we about to have public hearings trying to impeach a president rather than voting on the USMCA, reducing drug prices, improving health care for the 28 million...

No no no but you are saying poor Hunter Biden and Joe Biden did nothing wrong. But what did Donald Trump do wrong? 

They have the aid. They're using the aid. 

And they get to the process a bit.

I think - I think if you're going to do, respectfully, what Adam Schiff does, is just come out and cherry-pick the 10 seconds or 10 minutes of 10 hours worth of testimony the - the - we have no access to the full testimony because everything's been done in the dark in secret.

We cannot unscramble the egg, put the toothpaste back in the tube now...

And, back to substance, with this specific question: "Was - was there a time when military aid was held up because the president wanted Ukraine to look into the Bidens?"

I don't know. But I know they've got their aid... Here's what's absolutely, unimpeachably true. Ukraine has that aid. They have more aid than they had under the previous administration.

They are using the aid. The Ukrainian president said he had no idea aid was being held up. He felt no such pressure.  

On and on and on it went, almost like an "I know you are, but what am I?"  Conway herself frequently cherry-picked parts of what has been released that is allegedly helpful to the president, such as the Sondland text that there was no quid pro quo, not mentioning testimony that Trump dictated that message to him and told him to send it.

And, she said

So we have to...make sure people get the full picture. And we've all been deprived. CNN, the White House, we've all been deprived and denied... 

Sh said that public hearings are "too late" and added

What I'm telling you is, Ukraine has the aid. And if we're going to impeach a president over ...different people's - quote - "interpretations" who the last time I checked weren't elected to be the president of the United States and the commander in chief...

Nobody ever thought we'd release the transcript. Ladies and gentlemen, you can all see it. Go read it. Everybody has access to it. What we don't have access to, Dana, is what happened over the last five or six (weeks) (in)...secret.

...Because nothing in this conversation so far resonates to the country, especially in the 17 swing states, that would lead to a high crime or misdemeanor.  

Why don't they admit what this is all about? Stop pretending this is about Ukrainian aid, this is about red hats, red ties and rednecks.

I'm going to stop there, even though there was more, much more.