What drives the anti-anti-Trump left?
From the article I linked to earlier:
Adam Serwer correctly observes, in the Atlantic, that the whistleblower’s motives don’t much matter if his allegations are supported by evidence, which is certainly the case here. (Mark Felt, aka “Deep Throat” of the Watergate scandal, was associate director of the FBI and had a personal grudge against Richard Nixon.)
Paul and nan and all the rest can be 100% right about the corrupt motives of the IC against Trump. AND -- the rest of us can still be 100% right that Trump committed an impeachable offense. I feel like I'm repeating myself again and again, but this is true -- what paul is claiming and what I am claiming are not mutually exclusive conditions. Both can be true and correct.
It's not as though the CIA made up the "transcript" of Trump's call. It's not as though the CIA created a fake story of White House staff working feverishly to cover Trump's tracks regarding his call. There's all kinds of direct and circumstantial evidence already made public, some by the White House itself, that confirms the general outlines of the CIA whistleblower's claim.
terp said:
You seem incapable of expressing your opinion.
Well that's always a challenge in communications, isn't it? Something that seems straightforward when you say/write it isn't always received that way, and it's not always clear if that's a failure on your part or on that of your listener. To wit:
I'd add that it's American Imperialism that tends to strip agency and context from every country, organization, and cause outside of America. And yes, it's destructive and dangerous.
I thought it was pretty clear that this is a viewpoint I also share. The fact that you see yourself as "adding" this suggests you don't. My failure in expressing my point, or yours in missing it?
I don't know, so I'll say that I'll reflect on where I lacked clarity in the expression, and here explicitly note that the danger and destructiveness of American imperialism is something we agree on.
In turn, I'd encourage you to consider that the world is larger than you seem to allow for, and that just because someone doesn't subscribe to the ardent "anti-imperialist" viewpoint you espouse it doesn't follow that they are necessarily "pro-imperialist".
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
Oh. I thought you actually had something.
And that's more impeachable that withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement and INF Treaty?
Yes, because it is against the law, and withdrawing from these agreements (however stupid) is not
What law did Trump violate?
drummerboy said:
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
This completely misses the point and it confirms what you indicated on another thread, that you make "conclusions" about my posts before you read them.
The complaint about the CIA / FBI is that their opposition to Trump has nothing to do with his real High Crimes -- leaving the Paris Accord, the Iran Nuclear Deal, the INF, eliminating methane limits, gutting Federal science agencies -- but is based on Trump's attacks on the Intelligence Community (see video below) and calls for better relations with Russia. It's also true that their opposition to Trump is based on a fraud that has poisoned our relations with Russia and increased the danger of nuclear war by intention or accident.
Sorry for giving you credit for a better rationale than this one.
We've been through this. Those are not high crimes as long as Trump can plausibly claim to be pursuing "better deals."
Talk about pursuing a political impeachment. It would be idiocy and true political suicide to go after Trump on what is essentially a policy disagreement.
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
All of Paul's arguments against an impeachment investigation against Trump, in one cartoon:
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
The intention and reason for impeachment was to go after abuse of power.
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
Dude, a few posts ago you wanted to impeach for backing out of a treaty. Where's the crime there?
You should keep notes on what you say and refer to them often - a little consistency would be nice.
terp complained that no one was dealing with the details of what the anti-anti-trumpers are writing (not really true, there just haven't been any posts about that in this thread)
I'll outsource this one to Scott Lemieux
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I give Matt Taibbi this, he’s not going to let any mere facts interfere with his thoughts about how only the Deep State can melt steel beams:
I’ve lived through a few coups. They’re insane, random, and terrifying, like watching sports, except your political future depends on the score.
The kickoff begins when a key official decides to buck the executive. From that moment, government becomes a high-speed head-counting exercise. Who’s got the power plant, the airport, the police in the capital? How many department chiefs are answering their phones? Who’s writing tonight’s newscast?
When the KGB in 1991 tried to reassume control of the crumbling Soviet Union by placing Mikhail Gorbachev under arrest and attempting to seize Moscow, logistics ruled. Boris Yeltsin’s crew drove to the Russian White House in ordinary cars, beating KGB coup plotters who were trying to reach the seat of Russian government in armored vehicles. A key moment came when one of Yeltsin’s men, Alexander Rutskoi – who two years later would himself lead a coup against Yeltsin – prevailed upon a Major in a tank unit to defy KGB orders and turn on the “criminals.”
We have long been spared this madness in America. Our head-counting ceremony was Election Day. We did it once every four years.
That’s all over, in the Trump era.
[…]
My discomfort in the last few years, first with Russiagate and now with Ukrainegate and impeachment, stems from the belief that the people pushing hardest for Trump’s early removal are more dangerous than Trump. Many Americans don’t see this because they’re not used to waking up in a country where you’re not sure who the president will be by nightfall. They don’t understand that this predicament is worse than having a bad president.
I have questions!
- Does he understand that a “coup” against Donald Trump would require upwards of two dozen Republican senators?
- Does he understand that in the unlikely event of such a “coup,” the result would be…President Mike Pence?
- Does he think that literally any removal of a political leader from office is a “coup”? Was it a “coup” when Senate Republicans told Nixon he’d be convicted so he reigned? Is the impeachment power itself illegitimate? What about votes of confidence in the Westminster system? Are elections the only possible form of accountability for any misconduct by a top elected official?
- Is “Trump’s opposition is worse than Trump” the point where any distinction between “anti-anti-Trump” and “supports Trump” becomes meaningless?
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
this is why arguing with you is so frustrating. Not even the MAGAs are claiming that Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine were "policy." Your conclusion that it is about policy is to put it kindly, idiosyncratic. To put it more directly, it's bunk.
Look the issue here isn't that he broke a few rules or took a few liberties with the female guests. He did. *wink*
terp said:
Look the issue here isn't that he broke a few rules or took a few liberties with the female guests. He did. *wink*
Trump is, in fact, relying on the Otter defense. Impeachment is unconstitutional, or something like that.
As to the question that is the title of this thread, if one is of the extreme Left he will see no difference between pro-Trump capitalists and anti-Trump capitalists. But in the 30s even Communists aligned with "Liberals" against Fascism.
I do not have to love Churchill or British Imperialism to root for them against Hitler and Nazism.
If Trump had his way it would be illegal to post what we post on MOL. Terp would risk his freedom and safety by opposing US Imperialism. I understand that most will see this as hyperbole but listen to the things Trump says. He is a fascist in all but name.
paulsurovell said:
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
Oh. I thought you actually had something.
And that's more impeachable that withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement and INF Treaty?
Yes, because it is against the law, and withdrawing from these agreements (however stupid) is not
What law did Trump violate?
Election law, amongst others
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
Dude, a few posts ago you wanted to impeach for backing out of a treaty. Where's the crime there?
You should keep notes on what you say and refer to them often - a little consistency would be nice.
If we agree that you can impeach over policy, why not impeach over policies that constitute crimes against humanity instead of an ambiguous quid pro quo? Answer: Because the Democratic leadership isn't really concerned about Climate Change or the threat of nuclear war.
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
Oh. I thought you actually had something.
And that's more impeachable that withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement and INF Treaty?
Yes, because it is against the law, and withdrawing from these agreements (however stupid) is not
What law did Trump violate?
Election law, amongst others
That's pretty vague. Are you saying there's going to be a count of impeachment that says "Election Law"? And another count that says "Others"?
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
this is why arguing with you is so frustrating. Not even the MAGAs are claiming that Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine were "policy." Your conclusion that it is about policy is to put it kindly, idiosyncratic. To put it more directly, it's bunk.
Is it about law?
Great article about the title of this thread. Excerpts later:
paulsurovell said:
Great article about the title of this thread. Excerpts later:
I think you skimmed the thread to quickly to notice, but Ml1 already posted that.
PVW said:
paulsurovell said:
Great article about the title of this thread. Excerpts later:
I think you skimmed the thread to quickly to notice, but Ml1 already posted that.
I remember a member of the Judiciary Committee during the Nixon Impeachment discussions taking the position that the President should not be Impeached for minor crimes. I think the issue was Nixon's tax deductions. This Congressman said Impeachment should be reserved for serious abuses of power.
Trump's conditioning of aid to a foreign country on that country's assisting his re-election campaign, if true, is a major abuse of the power of the Presidency. Whether it's a "crime" or a "policy" is a distraction.
paulsurovell said:
Great article about the title of this thread. Excerpts later:
glad to see you have finally come around to exactly the point that I've been arguing to you for months.
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
Great article about the title of this thread. Excerpts later:
glad to see you have finally come around to exactly the point that I've been arguing to you for months.
I hate that O’Hehir feels he has to apologize for seeing both merits and objections in the arguments he discusses. And while I’m heartened that Paul deemed that discussion great, I guess we’ll see from the excerpts he chooses what he took away from it.
DaveSchmidt said:
I hate that O’Hehir feels he has to apologize for seeing both merits and objections in the arguments he discusses. And while I’m heartened that Paul deemed that discussion great, I guess we’ll see from the excerpts he chooses what he took away from it.
yes. O'Hehir's hedging is what might allow someone like paul to conclude that the article is anti-impeachment. Which it isn't. Because O'Hehir wrote this a few days earlier in another similar column:
Don't get me wrong: Impeachment is warranted for a long list of reasons, even if it's best understood as an episode in the 2020 presidential election.
Impeachment in the hall of mirrors: Will this battle save democracy -- or end it?
ml1 said:
paulsurovell said:
Great article about the title of this thread. Excerpts later:
glad to see you have finally come around to exactly the point that I've been arguing to you for months.
Good article!!!!
DaveSchmidt said:
I hate that O’Hehir feels he has to apologize for seeing both merits and objections in the arguments he discusses. And while I’m heartened that Paul deemed that discussion great, I guess we’ll see from the excerpts he chooses what he took away from it.
No reason to post excerpts. It takes five minutes to read the whole thing.
paulsurovell said:
drummerboy said:
paulsurovell said:
The current investigation about "abuse of power" which is not a crime, and much of it relates to policy disagreements.
Dude, a few posts ago you wanted to impeach for backing out of a treaty. Where's the crime there?
You should keep notes on what you say and refer to them often - a little consistency would be nice.
If we agree that you can impeach over policy, why not impeach over policies that constitute crimes against humanity instead of an ambiguous quid pro quo? Answer: Because the Democratic leadership isn't really concerned about Climate Change or the threat of nuclear war.
who agreed that you can impeach over policy? Not me.
STANV said:
No reason to post excerpts. It takes five minutes to read the whole thing.
if people read the whole article, it it makes it so much hard to take excerpts out of context to support a specific POV
This pretty much invalidates everything these guys will ever write forever.
paulsurovell said:
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
basil said:
paulsurovell said:
terp said:
ml1 said:
terp said:
When did he do that and what do you mean by "lean on"?
if you're the president of the US, asking for a favor from Ukraine is leaning on them.
Oh. I thought you actually had something.
And that's more impeachable that withdrawing from the Iran Nuclear Agreement and INF Treaty?
Yes, because it is against the law, and withdrawing from these agreements (however stupid) is not
What law did Trump violate?
Election law, amongst others
That's pretty vague. Are you saying there's going to be a count of impeachment that says "Election Law"? And another count that says "Others"?
I think they have many articles of impeachment that they could create, I don't know which ones they will use. But here is one out of the many options available to them:
U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a)ProhibitionIt shall be unlawful for
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make
. (A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
. (B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
. (C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
. (2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
Talk about pursuing a political impeachment. It would be idiocy and true political suicide to go after Trump on what is essentially a policy disagreement.