While some think that Trump is beyond defense and that the Republicans should be damned for siding with him, I contend that the Republicans are right to vigorously defend Trump. What I disagree with is how they are doing it.
The president, regardless of who holds the office, has the right to a fair, impartial and objective impeachment process. This includes a vigorous defense on the part of those who would take up the president’s cause, mostly typically the president’s party members. One reason for this is the presumption of innocence. While this is a principle for criminal trials, it is a good general moral principle to apply in any case where a person is accused and can face consequences. As part of American moral philosophy, we have adopted this principle and it is sensible to apply it consistently and thus it also applies to Trump. This presumption requires that a proper process be followed to prove that a person is guilty and if it fails, then the person should be regarded as innocent. If Trump were not defended, this would amount to a presumption of guilt—which would be unfair even if the president is guilty.
A vigorous defense is also important to maintain the commitment to the process—that the political battles will not fall into a sort of state of nature in which all that matters is might. Even if the outcome is certain, it is important to maintain a commitment to a proper and ideally a fair process. As always, one should apply the Golden Rule and consider that while someone they might hate or love is the target of impeachment, the next time the opposite could prove true. If we believe in truth, justice and the American way, then we must accept that the president is entitled to a vigorous defense. However, this does not entail that all defenses are justified.
Since I value truth and good reasoning, I am appalled by the usual tools of immoral politics—lies, misused rhetoric and fallacies. Ideally, these should not be employed to attack or defend a president. But my focus is not on my usual complaints about untruths and bad logic, but on a more serious matter—that the Republican’s defense strategies are damaging to the country.
One of the Republican tactics was to assert that the impeachment process is unconstitutional. In addition to getting the facts wrong (it is in the constitution) this lie is damaging because it attempts to deceive people about the constitution. That is, it is essentially defending Trump by lying about the law. But this is a small harm.
The Republicans also engaged in attacks on the ambassadors, staffers and others who testified before congress. For example, there were efforts to smear Lt. Colonel Vindman as a spy. Trump also broadly attacked the non-partisan witnesses as “never Trumpers” despite the lack of evidence and the fact that they had generally served presidents of both parties. Trump and his defenders are not only seeking to harm the witnesses, they are also serving to undermine trust in the people who serve the United States regardless of which party happens to be in control at a given moment. That is, they are causing lasting harm in the hope of a short-term political gain.
Rather than focus on a coherent defense of the claims against Trump, the Republicans tried to use red herrings in the forms of long discredited conspiracy theories about the Bidens, Hillary Clinton, Crowdstrike and the fabled server. Laying aside the moral problem about lying and the logical problem with using red herrings, the use of these toxic conspiracy theories involves undermining the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and other institutions. This is sometimes done directly by attacking them and other times by implication—if these lies are to be believed, then those who debunk them must be seen as lying or incompetent. This is not to deny that the FBI and others make mistakes but undermining these institutions for short term political gain is morally reprehensible. There is also the obvious worry that these undermining efforts are not just for short term gain but for long term gain—these institutions are obstacles to corruption and crimes.
One of the most damaging strategies is the Republican’s master conspiracy theory, that there is a deep state that exists to undermine Trump. This charge is brought up whenever anyone seeks to limit Trump’s actions or expose his misdeeds. To those who have a basic grasp of the law and the American political system, what the Republicans call the deep state is nothing more than the law and the people working in accord with the established political and legal system. That is right out in the open. Harping on the deep state is extremely corrosive since it undermines faith in the American legal and political systems and casts constitutional checks on power as some sort of vile conspiracy. This is doing a lot of damage for short term political gain and is likely also aimed at a long-term project, namely weakening the legal and political machinery that exists to resist corruption and tyranny.
So, how should the Republicans defend Trump? The ideal would, of course, be to abandon these corrosive tactics and focus on the key aspects of any defense: the facts of the matter and the values aspect. That is, the two issues are whether Trump did the actions in question and whether these actions warrant impeachment. Addressing these requires more than simply denying the facts and repeatedly insisting that the actions do not warrant impeachment. Angry yelling also does nothing, though people sometimes think that if someone is yelling angrily, then their anger must be justified. This need not be the case.
Considering that this thing started with the deranged idea that Trump was The Manchurian Candidate, I’d say the level of crazy in the discussion now has subsided considerably.
I’m tempted to try a DH-esque essay in response, but what’s the point?
The one thing that I believe you have got completely wrong, that is not part of the usual back and forth here, is the “deep state”. I find that an overly melodramatic term for the administrative apparatus and class, but there is no doubt it exists, in America, in Europe, in every state. Nor is this new: Czar Nicholas said “I do not rule Russia: ten thousand clerks do.” The administrative class is more quotidian, larger, and more powerful than “deep state” implies, and is also far less monolithic than that term suggests. But is is not “the law and the people”. It is constrained by law, of course, but it is not the law, and it is certainly not representative of the people – which is usually a good thing.
With a nod to CT, here is the “DH-esque” essay. It’s pretty long – in fact, when I first posted it I got a 404 error which I assume means it’s too long for a single post. So here’s Part I:
We are told that we must look away from the hugely beneficial USMCA, the capitulation of China in the standoff on trade negotiations, the lowest unemployment rates (especially among African Americans and Hispanics) in decades, tax reform that favors the middle class and simplifies filing for millions of Americans, greater increases in domestic manufacturing jobs in over 30 years, and unprecedented beginnings to diplomatic negotiations with North Korea.
We are told that the record number of deportations of illegal immigrants under the Obama administration was good – and that when Obama said that we need to prioritize the conviction and deportation of illegal immigrants who pose a threat to national security and who commit crimes that was good – but when Trump continued these policies and declared that some illegals threatened our national security, and some illegals came here to smuggle drugs and human cargo, and that some illegals are criminals – murderers and rapists – we are told what to think about that and it is bad – that Trump is a White Supremacist, a neo-Nazi, and that his approach to immigration is nothing short of racist.
And we are told, as we have been since November, 2016, that this White Supremacist, Racist, self-aggrandizing non-Presidential-acting, compulsive-tweeting billionaire deserves nothing but our hatred, and should be impeached. And we are told – directly or indirectly, via mainstream media or social media, that if we speak out in support of this man in any form, whether in whole or in part, that we are to be shunned.
“One of the most damaging strategies is the Republican’s master conspiracy theory, that there is a deep state that exists to undermine Trump. “
This is a “Reductio” argument, an attempt to ridicule the valid claim that beginning around 19 minutes after the Trump electoral victory was certified, a constant, probably organized attempt to overturn this election has existed – with accusations borne of selective outrage flying from every corner of the Democrat party. It is no secret that “impeachment” has been at the forefront of the Democrat agenda ever since they won a House majority in 2018. The only problem has been finding an accusation that could stick.
Is it “Deep State”? Probably not – but it is borne of a broad anti-Trump hatred, an opposition to policy, and a process of “throwing as much shit against the wall as possible to see what sticks”.
The wanton glee among Democrats in this process has been bridled by the sane, if not completely amoral but well-calculated political wisdom of Nancy Pelosi, who until recently, has held sway against any official filings lest they damage the Democrat brand in the face of the upcoming election. It is patently obvious that this impeachment circus is politically motivated. “Can we convict? Unlikely. Can we keep these accusations in the public eye until election day? We certainly hope so. Can we continue to make these accusations and feign our horror, while diverting the finger of accusation away from ourselves? It’s a calculated risk … ”
Put in layman’s terms – these impeachment proceedings were entirely predictable and predicted as just another spoonful of spaghetti hurled against the drywall – after the Mueller report showed nothing, and the accusations of the Emoluments Clause went nowhere, and after accusations of “Supporting White Supremacy” had no basis, and any of a dozen other attempts to undermine his legitimacy were unable to gain purchase.
These proceedings are perhaps historically very significant; they may be a lot of things but the one thing they are not is a legitimate, Constitutional investigation into “High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. At the very best, they are selective outrage towards a continuation of US Government “Status Quo” by a hated outsider, but i think they are more than that.
And to your question about the defense of Trump by the Republicans, there’s more to that, too. Trump’s actions are the least of what’s on trial here; these impeachment proceedings represent the worst of partisan politics and the desire to get rid of a president whose legitimacy one party has never accepted. Should the proceedings result in a conviction and removal from office, our system of government and balance of power among three equal branches will be forever changed, and we will be reduced to the level of the worst third-world power-hungry dictatorship.
So step one is to deny the hatred of the man and the strident opposition to policy – policy that has to be twisted and disparaged for the opposition to gain support – by name-calling and ridicule … (“Deep State!” HA! Are they kidding? What a bunch of maroons!) … and yet, the hatred, the opposition, and the wordsmithing exist.
This should not be the “Republicans” defending Trump, it should be “America” defending a legitimately elected president, regardless of whether or not we agree with his policies, against a rampant, power-hungry majority in the House of Representatives who have made it their mission from Day One to be rid of him.
(I’ve mentioned before the similarity of these proceedings to those of Andrew Johnson. It’s a difficult comparison to make, because Johnson was never elected; as a professed moderate Southern Democrat he was put on Lincoln’s ticket for political expediency at the end of the Civil War, and upon Lincoln’s assassination proceeded to reverse all of the programs and goals of Reconstruction. Legally, however, and irrespective of policy, his impeachment was as contrived by the Radical Republicans as Trump’s is today. In other words – “We hate him, so we will do whatever we can to get rid of him”. Johnson’s impeachment can *maybe* be justified by the politics that put him on a ticket that never should have had him on it, or by his undoing of what took four years of war and death and tragedy to accomplish, but the fact remains that the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” were nothing if not manufactured).
Part II
But regarding Trump and his defense:
“One of the Republican tactics was to assert that the impeachment process is unconstitutional. In addition to getting the facts wrong (it is in the constitution) this lie is damaging because it attempts to deceive people about the constitution. That is, it is essentially defending Trump by lying about the law.”
I think you have mis-read this, or are grossly misinterpreting it. No Republican has said that impeachment proceedings in and of themselves are unconstitutional – but the process by which these proceedings have been held are. Under what law is an accused denied the right to face his accuser? The “Whistleblower” law of 1989 merely protects a government employee from official retaliation relative to his/her job, but it does not guarantee anonymity. And the initial hearings were held behind closed doors, with no input, information, or defense allowed by any Republican, Trump defender, attorney, or Trump himself. The proceedings were held in secret, as though part of some kind of dictatorship that has no regard for due process.
The accusations of “Quid Pro Quo” and of pressuring the Ukraine government to comply with Trump’s personal motives in order to secure funding for military aid or even diplomatic meetings are at the heart of these impeachment proceedings. It would appear that to you, in your defense of Trump and “due process”, his guilt in this matter is a foregone conclusion; it is a fact for which there is no defense – but like the most vile of criminals, even Trump is entitled to a defense. How gracious.
Except that none of these accusations is included in the Articles of Impeachment. None have any basis in fact, except in the imaginations of those who would seek to undo the election of 2016. While the accusation of “Bribery” got a great deal of press and had a considerable amount of influence over public opinion, that was not among the “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” including in the Articles. “Quid Pro Quo” has also gotten a lot of press – in the form of pressuring the Ukraine government to investigate the Bidens as a prerequisite to the US releasing military aid or even holding meetings – but not only have the meetings been held as scheduled and the money been allocated, these accusations themselves have been watered down to the basis of hearsay or opinion. Not a single witness has stated that “Quid Pro Quo” in exchange for the investigation of Joe or Hunter Biden was anything more than a presumption or interpretation on their part.
“The two issues are whether Trump did the actions in question and whether these actions warrant impeachment. Addressing these requires more than simply denying the facts and repeatedly insisting that the actions do not warrant impeachment.”
Agreed. But what are the actions in question?
The Articles of Impeachment merely make the allegation that the release of military funding and the agreement to holding meetings were made simply based on the specter of the public revelation of his actions – and these allegations are backed only by the opinions of witnesses who have a history of seeking to undermine Trump. No one disputes the fact that Trump said “I need your help on something” in that phone call – but everything beyond that is a matter of speculation, hearsay, and “state of mind”.
In fact, the Articles of Impeachment contain only two relatively weak accusations – “Abuse of Office” and “Obstruction of Congress”
Both of these accusations are highly subjective, and as some pundits have pointed out, can mean “whatever we want them to mean”. Every president in modern history has exercised his power in negotiations with both foreign and domestic entities in order to achieve his ends. A very strong case can be made that Trump’s request for Ukranian assistance in addressing corruption and collusion in American elections had nothing to do with his own political motives, but were in the interest of the United States. As a taxpayer, I am glad that the President of the United States, in a conversation with the new President of Ukraine, asked for support in uncovering corruption before handing over $400 million in aid; especially given the context that $37 billion “vanished” under the previous administration.
(In fact, I’d like to know if Trump was unduly pressured into prematurely releasing the $400 million under threat of attack by House Democrats.)
“Trump also broadly attacked the non-partisan witnesses as “never Trumpers” despite the lack of evidence and the fact that they had generally served presidents of both parties.”
The fact is that many of these witnesses are not “non partisan”, nor are they not “never Trumpers”. Adam Schiff himself is a pretty good example of this – he was an avid supporter of the claims that the Trump administration actively colluded with Russia. In an interview with Chuck Todd of MSNBC, Todd asked Schiff if he had seen direct evidence of collusio. Schiff responded that there was “evidence that is not circumstantial and is very much worthy of investigation”. As we know now, this evidence did not exist.
But rather than address these witnesses’ loyalty or credibility one by one (I don’t know them, I don’t know anything about them, and I’m not a lawyer), I’d simply offer that challenging the motives and authority of witnesses is pretty standard stuff in legal proceedings, isn’t it? I know you’ve offered some nice syllogisms that prove the fallacy of this kind of argument – but short of an absolute proof it does go a long way toward making a case:
1. “Witness ‘A’ says that accused ‘B’ is, in his opinion, guilty as sin”
2. “Witness ‘A’ has a long history of hatred and opposition toward accused ‘B’, and has never shown themselves to be unbiased”
3. “While it is possible that Witness ‘A’ may, for the first time ever, be telling the truth – his testimony is nonetheless suspect”
(Possible substitution for #2: “Witness ‘A’ has a lot to gain if accused ‘B’ is removed from office”
One point I’d like to make is that in light of the very early beginnings to the blatant and unabashed attacks on Trump, his administration, and his policies – and the consistent attempt to interpret anything and anything that he does as a “High Crime and/or Misdemeanor”, I’d put the burden of proof on the accusers to show cause as to how they are not “Never Trumpers”. I think it was you who brought up the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. The ending of that story notwithstanding, one does tend to lose credibility if one continues with the same accusation for absolutely everything.
Part III
But getting back to the original premise of this discussion – regarding the “defense of Trump”, I’d say there are two viable options.
The first, which goes completely against the Trump promise of “Draining the Swamp”, is for the Senate to just dismiss the case altogether on its lack of merit. The House case is incredibly weak; there is no direct evidence of any of the claims made by the articles. As to the first charge of “Abuse of Power”, they are based on opinion and hearsay only; the “Quid Pro Quo” accusation completely ignores the statements made by the other party to the call – Ukraine president Zeliensky. In looking at the charges of “Obstruction of Congress”, well, not only is that not a crime, but it is the obligation of the Executive Branch, to not bend to an overreaching Congress and to assert the power of the President as an equal member of a tri-cameral government. Nearly every president in recent history has defied Congressional subpoena and held firm to his actions, lest an over-zealous Congress do what this one is attempting to do today. It is just as important that Congress defy the President, by the way, lest one branch wield too much power. This is a struggle between the two branches – certainly not an impeachable offense.
On the other hand, the second option (which is being stridently called for by the most staunch Conservatives, and those who truly seek the “Draining of the Swamp”), would be a full scale trial in the Senate – one which investigates exactly that which you claim has been “debunked”. The beginning of this trial would call into question this “Deep State” that exists to undermine Trump.
As I said above, calling this whole process a “Deep State Conspiracy” is probably a gross exaggeration, likely not much more than a PR tactic – made in order to ridicule the accusations by Republicans that there has been a constant, concerted effort on the part of Democrats to this exact end.
Posts on Facebook and articles in The New York Times have a certain desired effect, but to introduce evidence in a Senate trial would call into question the entire Mueller report – including official testimony about the Democrat funding and support of the Steele dossier, and introduce some pretty disturbing questions about the actions of the FBI in obtaining a series of FISA warrants that presumably supported the now-disproven allegations of Trump’s collusion with Russia during the 2016 campaign. The allegations of connections between the Steele dossier, the DNC, and the Clinton campaign are highly credible, and the dissemination of these allegations stand to bring down quite a number of people.
And, of course, if the allegation of a “Deep State” is introduced, this line of inquiry is entirely acceptable. Whether the term sticks or not, there are some very questionable actions that would demand explanation.
Further, with regard to the current impeachment proceedings, Adam Schiff has a history of the acceptance and support of all of the allegations made during the Mueller investigation – and his public statements regarding “credible evidence” and “smoking guns” that never materialized – which in a trial scenario, would call into question his motives and impartiality.
But in this second option, the key pivot point of Trump’s trial defense would revolve around his intent in asking for Zelensky’s cooperation in addressing corruption in the prior administration, and his mention of Joe and Hunter Biden.
Was this simply a clumsy, ill-advised and downright stupidly blatant request for foreign involvement in a US presidential election? Do we really believe that? Or was it an attempt at reparations with a new Ukraine administration, eager to establish positive diplomatic relations with a US President whom the previous administrations (Ukraine andUS) never believed would be elected, and whom both administrations sought to undermine?
A prolonged Senate trial would want to know the answers to the questions that arise from Trump’s comments during his conversation with Zelensky. Since Trump never specifically demanded any sort of “Quid Pro Quo”, nor is there any accusation or evidence of bribery, it would seem prudent that a full investigation of the nature of these comments be launched.
And a thorough and proper line of inquiry would need to go back as far as, say, 2013, when then-president Viktor Yanukovych abruptly backed out of a European Union pact linked to anti-corruption reforms. Instead, Yanukovych entered into a multibillion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia, sparking protests across Ukraine and prompting Yanukovych to flee the country to Russia under Putin’s protection. This, of course, led to the Russian annexation of Crimea. Of interest is the fact that Paul Manafort, prior to his association with the Trump campaign, had been an advisor to Viktor Yanukovych – but had dropped off the radar upon Yanukovych’s flight to Putin’s protection.
However, enter Alexandra Chalupa – the daughter of Ukranian-American immigrants who not only retained strong ties to the Ukraine government but to the DNC and the Clinton Campaign, and (allegedly) actively participated in a campaign wherein she leveraged her connection with Ukraine officials in order to provide damaging information to the Clinton campaign.
I draw no conclusions here, but I am smart enough, and just cynical enough, to understand that there are dirty tricks on both sides of politics; this is a game of power and influence and the successful players will stop at nothing to win.
Actually, I draw one conclusion.
“the Republicans tried to use red herrings in the forms of long discredited conspiracy theories about the Bidens, Hillary Clinton, Crowdstrike and the fabled server. Laying aside the moral problem about lying and the logical problem with using red herrings, the use of these toxic conspiracy theories involves undermining the FBI, the intelligence agencies, and other institutions. .”
Allegations against the Bidens and Hillary Clinton are neither red herrings nor have they been “long discredited”. They have not been thoroughly investigated, but rather have been dismissed by some op-ed writer or biased government official. I don’t know enough about Crowdstrike or the server in question to make a call on that, but given Hillary Clinton’s history with her email server, I’m not really willing to just accept her word for it without a broader inquiry, And the FBI has been widely discredited with regard to its mishandling of the information in the Steele dossier, their prior knowledge of the lack of veracity of that information, and their use of it regardless of this knowledge in order to obtain a string of FISA warrants under false pretenses – one of which was used to completely ruin the life of Carter Page.
If there is a “toxic conspiracy theory”, it is coming from the left … “Nothing to see here!”. If the FBI and DOJ have been undermined, they have done that themselves. Have they, in fact, been complicit in a “coup d’etat” orchestrated by the left-wing of our government, colluding with them by purposely failing to adequately vet important documents and acting with malfeasance in obtaining warrants which they then use to discredit members of an administration they wish to take down?
I’d like to point out that the above two paragraphs are not “conspiracy theories”, “red herrings” or “talking points”. They are factual conclusions that have arisen from proper investigations, that are serious issues that warrant some serious further inquiry. To treat them as “conspiracy theories” or “red herrings” is a serious denial of truth, and of the obvious placement of “party” over “country”. The fact that this is happening in this country goes way beyond how we feel about taxes, about immigration, about healthcare, LGBT rights or trade with China – and it certainly extends way beyond how we might feel about Donald Trump. Our Constitution is supposed to protect us against that kind of abuse – and if we sit by and support those who blatantly subvert that Constitution out of simple delusional blind hatred and a refusal to open our eyes, this country will not last beyond the next election.
I am not naive enough to believe that the Democrats are as pure as the driven snow in this “conflict”. In fact, I believe very strongly that they are as guilty as they accuse Trump of being in terms of “advancing their own political agendas by abusing (or simply leveraging) their own power”.
I think that the Trump defense, backed by a Republican-Majority Senate, might just have the ability to launch a full-scale inquiry and investigation into some areas that the Democrats would prefer be left alone.
I think that Donald Trump is considered to be a “loose cannon” in American politics, and that there is a strong bipartisan “comfort” in the status quo, lest a system of quid-pro-quo, compromise, and abject “old boy” self-interest collapse under too much scrutiny.
I think that the Democrats have seriously overplayed their hand, with Nancy Pelosi being the last one to abandon political reason and strategy for abject emotion and hatred – but even in her calculated maneuver, she did so in the belief that the anti-Trump hatred and pro-Democrat narrative could be carried through the 2020 elections.
Perhaps she is right.
And thus, I think that if the Senate should choose to dismiss this impeachment case (as legally they should), the Democrats should consider themselves very lucky indeed. I think the alternative (as politically they might) could be devastating to the party.
And lest i be accused of a Pollyanna view of the Republicans in the House and Senate, i will go on record as to say that I think they’re probably just as bad. They haven’t overplayed their hand here, though, and I don’t recall them ever attempting a coup like this (the Clinton impeachment came close, but at least in that case there was an actual charge).
And if there is reluctance in the Senate to try this case without limits, my first conclusion will be that they are afraid too many Republicans will be taken down with the Democrats.
It may just be the “draining of the swamp” we so desparately need.
Mike, unlike Sharyl Attkisson, who you have unfairly demonized, you did not provide links to the original sources to back up your various allegations.
The real story of the past 3 years, which you have missed, is an attempt by the establishment to undo the results of the 2016 election by any means necessary. Trump is regarded as an antigen and he has elicited an immune response. This immune response to a legitimately elected president is far more dangerous to our Republic than the background noise that you have seized on.
For some reason it bothers you that someone, somewhere called Vindman a spy, but it does not seem to bother you that Carter Page had his constitutional rights serially violated by the U.S. government.
Your moral compass is spinning wildly.
who you have unfairly demonized
Really not fair of you to say he did that unless you can prove it and/or he admits that he did that. Just saying. You’re not being fair.
I agree with WTP.
“I’m still unsure of the credibility of the source.” [Sharyl Attkisson]
does not constutute demonising.
Is there some subtle dig I’m missing?
Just to refresh everyone’s recollection. The discussion was about fake news. I linked to Sharyl Attkisson page in which she lists over 100 news stories about Trump that were seriously wrong. Here is the link:
https://sharylattkisson.com/2019/01/50-media-mistakes-in-the-trump-era-the-definitive-list/
Here are some examples from the page:
98. Nov. 19, 2019
London’s Daily Mail posts a sensational headline during the impeachment hearings against President Trump. It claims that a key witness, Ambassador Kurt Volker, had “walked back” his testimony in a way that was detrimental to Trump. When Volker was asked, in real time at the hearing, if the Daily Mail headline was correct and he had, indeed, changed his testimony, Volker stated that no. The headline was wrong.
99. Nov. 19, 2019
Agence France Press publishes a sensational story saying that more than 100,000 children are being held in migration-related detention in the U.S. under President Trump. It turns out that was the number in 2015 under President Obama.
100. Nov. 28, 2019
Newsweek falsely reports that President Trump is spending Thanksgiving golfing in Florida at his Mar-a-Lago Resort. He was actually in Afghanistan serving dinner to U.S. troops. It’s the second year in a row that national media makes the same mistake. (The reporter, Jessica Kwong, was reportedly later fired.)
101. Nov. 24, 2019
It turns out the same Newsweek reporter, Kwong, reported an allegedly misleading story the week before about President Trump’s tipping implying he’d been cheap.
Newsweek later updated the story to remove the headline reference to a “thin stack of cash” and include that it was 100 dollar bills, and above and beyond what Trump had already tipped the servers.
Mike chose to ignore this evidence and wrote that he didn’t think Sharyl Attkisson was very credible. This despite the fact that she links to the original, wrong news story in nearly every case. No one has to take her word for anything as they can easily check for themselves.
To demonize someone is to “un-person” them. It basically means that they have nothing to offer and can safely be ignored. This is exactly what Mike did to Sharyl Attkisson. He said she “wasn’t credible,” offered no evidence for this statement, and refused to even consider the evidence she offered. He has closed his mind to anything she has to say. Isn’t this exactly what we mean when we talk about demonization?
All my comments and posts on the matter are unchanged, so if I did demonize her then there would be evidence that could be quoted. But I only wondered about her credibility without asserting anything about her being wicked or awful.
I’ve not demonized her. Saying that I have questions about her credibility is not demonizing.
Why push that tired conspiracy theory about undoing the election? Where the Republicans trying to undo an election when they impeached Clinton? No, they claimed he had done things worthy of impeachment. He did, it turns out, do some crimes. Also, lots of other bad stuff.
Violation of rights do bother me. While Page was handled sloppily by the FBI, the concern on the part of Trump and his fellows is to use this as a talking point to attack the Democrats. So yes, the FBI handled it badly, which is part of a much broader problem with policing in the United States. But if Fox and the Republicans had a principled stand on proper process, they would be pushing for and engaged in broad reforms of law enforcement rather than rolling them back while wringing their hands for one person. So, this false concern is just that, a false concern. Yes, they are worried about Page. No, they are not worried about rights in general.
Were the Republicans trying to undo an election when they impeached Clinton?
Yes. Yes, they were.
The phrase may not be as apt in the Clinton case. 1) The Republicans had not been keeping up a rolling barrage of falsehoods promulating wild conspiracy theories and egging their media friends to sensationalise and exaggerate and speculate from the start of Clinton’s presidency, and 2) The Republicans were content with dealing what they thought would be a critical blow to his presidency, and hobbling his ability to conduct government business, rather than having a single-minded determination to get him out by any means necessary.
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that the Republican push to impeach Clinton was equally politically motivated, if less personally vicious and nationally damaging.
I believe, without detailed evidence, that every modern president has committed perjury, that every modern president could be convictedeby a motivated jury of the vague “abuse of power” and that every modern president could be convicted by a motivated jury of obstruction of justice. I do not hedge the perjury charge, because so many federal declarations are signed under the penalties of perjury, and the president – and no doubt half of official Washington – signs such declarations regularly, knowing them to be false, or at least partly or arguably false.
Per the book TJ often references, Three Felonies A Day. And that was in reference to the average citizen. Anyone trying to get anything done in this country on a large scale is even more vulnerable. A POTUS even more so. While I’ve said to TJ that I think the three felonies a day for the average citizen is a bit high, I have been saying for decades now that via the many, many laws that get passed and the inability of any government to implement them fairly and as broadly as many of them are intended, our politicians have legislated us into anarchy. Every new law, rule, etc. that gets created is little more than a jobs program for the ridiculous number of lawyers we have running around the country looking to fund their miserable lives. This is the price we pay for more and more government control over our lives.
Would you thus contend that impeachment is always illegitimate when directed at an elected president? Or is “undoing an election” an unloaded phrase for you that just means “removing the president from office by constitutional means”? I ask because “undoing an election” seems rather loaded-like they are doing something wrong by following the process outlined in the constitution. When someone gets fired for doing crimes, we don’t say that the employer is “undoing the hiring.” Or maybe we should? Or when someone divorces an abusive cheater, should we say that they are “undoing the marriage”?
“Undoing an election” is a little loaded for me. It implies that a candidate selected by one entity for some reason is cancelled by another entity or for another reason.
It is entirely clear to me that the Democrats in this case simply want Trump out, and aren’t even trying to pretend seriously it’s about crimes. They had their CIs in the White House, keeping them informed; they would have come up with something.
If a work candidate was hired by Department A in a company, but Department B, for internal political reasons, found a pretext to call for his firing, I might characterise it as “undoing the hiring”.
So Trump was hired by the voters, and the Democrats in the House are now trying to fire him.
Clinton’s case was similar. The Republicans had Inquisitor Starr rattling around investigating every possible thing until someone brought non-crime to him he could leverage into a perjury/obstruction charge.
Neither case had anything to so with actual impeachable offences; both were pretexts to allow for removal, or at least obstruction and embarrassment.
“…it does not seem to bother you that Carter Page had his constitutional rights serially violated by the U.S. government.”
This has become an acceptable tactic of the left – it’s OK to serially violate someone’s constitutional rights and smear their names in the press on nothing but allegations without so much as a “Hm – I guess we were wrong, then. Sorry!” (As long as they are Republican, that is).
https://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-spying-ruined-my-good-name-11576022322?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=12
(Don’t know if that can be read without a subscription to the WSJ, though …)
This has been the tactic for decades now. They move the argument to the left, “reasonable” people on the right try to meet them so-called half-way, thus moving the Overton Window to the left. And on and on and on it goes to the point where people with moderate positions, positions endorsed by democrats just a few years earlier, become HITLER HITLER HITLER, BABIES IN CAGES, etc. You know the routine.
How do you propose to stop it?
We can’t stop it. It’s too late. All we can do is hang on until we die, or the contradictions within the New Left tear them apart, whichever comes first – and I’m not betting on the collapse of so many carefully cherished fictions before I die. It took 30 years for Lysenkoism.
From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko’s admonitions and with Stalin’s approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist and president of the Agriculture Academy, Nikolai Vavilov, was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.
In 1936, the American geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller, who had moved to the Leningrad Institute of Genetics with his Drosophila fruit flies, was criticized as a bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist, and promoter of fascism, so he left the USSR, returning to America via Republican Spain. In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience”; the remaining geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and genetics research was discontinued.
Over 3,000 biologists were imprisoned, fired, or executed for attempting to oppose Lysenkoism and genetics research was effectively destroyed until the death of Stalin in 1953. Due to Lysenkoism, crop yields in the USSR actually declined.
There are people still on the traditional Left who have not lost touch with reality. Here’s one:
https://theintercept.com/2019/12/12/the-inspector-generals-report-on-2016-fb-i-spying-reveals-a-scandal-of-historic-magnitude-not-only-for-the-fbi-but-also-the-u-s-media/
It reiterates one of my standard talking points, that we don’t hold people accountable for lying.
None of these journalists have acknowledged an iota of error in the wake of this report because they know that lying is not just permitted but encouraged as long as it pleases and vindicates the political beliefs of their audiences. Until that stops, credibility and faith in journalism will never be restored, and – despite how toxic it is to have a media that has no claim on credibility – that despised status will be fully deserved.
Much is talked about Trump’s flights from reality in his Twitter feed, but the harm from the media, led by the NYT, is much worse, eveyone allows for the fact that Trump exaggerates and blusters as standard, but many people still think of the press and TV news as legitimate news organisations, committed to getting at the truth, and take them seriously.
We can’t stop it. It’s too late. All we can do is hang on until we die
Agree with the rest of this comment but this, much like your comment about poverty on the other thread which I lack the time to address fully, is a cop out.
It reiterates one of my standard talking points, that we don’t hold people accountable for lying.
Yes, we actually must DO something. Let’s hold people accountable for lying. Can you think of anyone here who is guilty of any of the following:
Anyone?
For example, there were efforts to smear Lt. Colonel Vindman as a spy.
Mike, can you provide a source for this statement?
https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/11/22/fox-news-pushed-to-correct-guest-who-seemed-to-call-vindman-a-spy/
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/alexander-vindman-fox-news-espionage.html
https://www.businessinsider.com/vindman-attorneys-demand-fox-news-retracts-spy-smear-2019-11