What's going on with this DNI Whistleblower ?

[NWBuck 8569]

6 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

let's just hope we make it to next november.

Read that in Merle's voice:

 

[Js1 85348]

I'm not even sure I'll make it to this November. 

Edited October 9, 2019 by Js1

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

24 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i know in 2016 there were a bunch of people that acted one way, but voted for trump anyway, and lied to the pollsters, and yada yada.

anyone feel like 2020 might be the opposite?  maybe not at the highest levels, but i can see regular people who had been vocal about supporting trump (or at least not super critical, silent and complicit) doing the "right" thing and either not voting or (gasp) voting dem.  i think even those who won't say it are fucking sick of it.  sick of the drama, the tweets, the bad decisions, and the general non-governing.  it's already happening within congress, the senate, and definitely at the state and local levels.  i know personally it's happening with citizens.

i really just don't see him gaining votes these past few years, and turnout will be higher.  i don't see him somehow running warren's disapproval into the mid 50's.  and i don't see the people who just voted "against hillary" running to vote for him either.  i've been saying it for 8 months, but he's about to find out what it's like to be the unlikable name on the ballot.  the name that gets people off the couch.

i don't think voter suppression or any other dirty tricks can stop the drubbing that's coming his way next november.  he had to thread the needle perfectly to win once, and now he thinks he's an expert at it.  he'll run the same campaign and get demolished.

let's just hope we make it to next november.

I am surrounded (in my neighborhood) by Trump supporters. None of them, after the usual chitchat, have seemed to be politically active other than voting for him. They have very few talking points (other than emails!!) and seem to just follow the GOP as if that is what Texans do. Brisket and a couple of others have indicated that many Republicans will disavow Trump publicly but push the button for him in the booth. I could see that happening with some of them on our street, but at least two of them I think would just stay home. They are the two that absolutely hated on Hillary. Without that animus, and with the negativity surrounded Trump, I could see them deciding to sit this one out. However, Cornyn may spoil the party because he will be on the ballot presuming he makes it past the primary and will be flooding the airwaves with his usual nonsense. The neighbor that is retired would go vote for Cornyn but the other one, would not leave work unless it was to vote against Hillary. She is not the type to bother with early voting, or voting before or after work.

So while that is not support for the Democrats, it isn't support for Trump exactly. There are quite a few "meh," people out there. His real base is pretty rabid, racist, and repugnant.

 

 

 

Sorry for spoiling your  DNI Whistleblower Party and going off topic.

 

[atomheartbevo 89675]

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

I don't think voter suppression or any other dirty tricks can stop the drubbing that's coming his way next november.  he had to thread the needle perfectly to win once, and now he thinks he's an expert at it.

If he was confident he can beat the impeachment, and win next year, and truly thought he was an expert, he wouldn’t be having so many meltdowns on twitter and in his pressers.   He also wouldn’t give a shit about a Mitt Romney’s comments. 

I also think that’s partly why he’s not attacking Graham.   If Mitt is working against him on impeachment, and he goes after Graham as well over Graham slamming him on the Kurds, all of the sudden, between those two, they could probably round up more Rs for impeachment, and then things get really shaky for him.  

If you have Romney and a few moderates expected to vote for impeachment, you’re 10-15 votes away away.  Graham has some serious sway - what if he suddenly finds his spine and lets it be known to Trump that he supports impeachment?  What happens if a few others follow his lead?

I think it’s too late, but a part of me wonders if Trump will try to salvage things in Syria to keep Graham on his side.

But that’s based on Trump being calculating, and Graham finding his balls.

 

[atomheartbevo 89675]

29 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Sorry for spoiling your  DNI Whistleblower Party and going off topic.

The election and impeachment are joined at the hip.  

[InkaUtexas 25951]

7 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think it’s too late, but a part of me wonders if Trump will try to salvage things in Syria to keep Graham on his side.

 

What can he do to stop the Turks now? Say we won't share intel? The Russians will and sell them more weapons. I wish your late day ponderings were correct, but damn, I don't see where we can stop Turkey at this stage. Who in the neighborhood would stand up for the Kurds? Iraqi Sunnis have their own problems in downtown Baghdad right now. 

[henrygandorf 29191]

12 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think it’s too late, but a part of me wonders if Trump will try to salvage things in Syria to keep Graham on his side.

But that’s based on Trump being calculating, and Graham finding his balls.

part of me thinks some republicans are coming out hard against this move (on twitter) because it's a no-brainer and then they get to say, "see, we don't blindly follow everything he does, we're totally objective!"  and then they'll blindly follow everything he does.

i'm much more interested in the deafening silence coming from everyone not named graham, pence, jordan, pompeo, and guiliani.

[Ghost of LL 15531]

3 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

part of me thinks some republicans are coming out hard against this move (on twitter) because it's a no-brainer and then they get to say, "see, we don't blindly follow everything he does, we're totally objective!"  and then they'll blindly follow everything he does.

i'm much more interested in the deafening silence coming from everyone not named graham, pence, jordan, pompeo, and guiliani.

If I'm a Republican senator, you'd hear silence from me, too.  I'm not asked to say anything until the House impeaches.  And until that happens, I'm keeping my options open.

[Junior Miller 1502]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

I'm counting on the Republicans being completely craven and caring only about their own power.

Let's get one thing out of the way right now--for the most part, Republican senators fundamentally don't understand their voters.  They were, and remain, completely gobsmacked by the racialized populist wave that Trump brought to power.  They don't know how to counter it.  They don't know how big it is.  They don't know how much of it is centered on the personality of Donald Trump, and how much is centered on the ideas.

In short, they're entering this from a position of serious uncertainty.

The polls are getting worse for Trump every day.  The most recent polls show a plurality--and damned near a majority--currently favor impeachment and removal.  Every indication is that we will soon reach a significant majority favoring impeachment and removal as events continue to develop.

But that doesn't matter, right?  So long as Republicans stay with Trump, right?

Here's the problem--there are preliminary indications that Republicans aren't staying with Trump.  The Wapo poll has about 18% of Republicans favoring removal (and 28% favoring impeachment without removal).  As with everyone else, that number is going up by the day.  I suspect that when Trump said only 25% favor impeaching him, he was disclosing some internal poll of Republicans.

So here's the deal if you're a Republican: You have two concerns in your path to reelection: a primary challenge and a general-election challenge.  And your only concern here is survival.

First, the primary challenge.  If you're John Cornyn, for example, you don't care about a primary challenge after December 9 (i.e., the filing deadline).  But even if you have a primary challenger (as John Cornyn kinda does), if you have 25-30% favoring impeachment and removal, which is where the polls are at, that's probably enough to survive a primary challenge.  Sure, you went against majority opinion, but you'll have plenty of people who will forgive that.

The general election is a lot trickier.  Even in a Republican state like Texas, the current polls are very dangerous.  The Democrats are almost unified, and independents are swinging toward impeachment and removal.  If those numbers go up, it is going to become politically unsustainable to vote against conviction.  

And here's the postscript if you're a Republican senator: Fuck Donald Trump.  If it's a close call--and it's getting to be a close call for a lot of these guys--they're going to abandon Trump. 

So you're going with option #3 which I hope you're right. And you may be. After after seeing how weak polling accuracy turned out to be in 2016 I'm not sure it's something to be counted on, and especially with regards to trump who is so repugnant a lot of people who will vote for him won't admit it to a pollster. I don't think republican congressmen turn on him based on polls. 

The key difference may be people who supported Bernie or who were completely turned off by the corruption in the DNC in favor of Hillary. How many either stayed away or voted trump without realizing the pure corruption/idiocy/and evil they were supporting? Are there a lot of them? Will they turn out big to kill trump in this next one? 

So much unknown that's why I said it's pretty much a crap shoot at best. I hope you're right and we hit the passline. 

[Ghost of LL 15531]

24 minutes ago, Junior Miller said:

So you're going with option #3 which I hope you're right. And you may be. After after seeing how weak polling accuracy turned out to be in 2016 I'm not sure it's something to be counted on, and especially with regards to trump who is so repugnant a lot of people who will vote for him won't admit it to a pollster. I don't think republican congressmen turn on him based on polls. 

People keep saying this like it's true, and it's just not.  The RCP average of polls had Clinton winning by 3.3.  The fivethirtyeight.com analysis had Clinton winning by 3.6.  Guess what--she won by 2.1.  That's pretty goddamned close to the mark.  If you're a Republican senator sitting there hoping for a major polling error on all these impeachment polls, then 2016 is not the evidence on which you want to rely.

Here's the thing I know about most members of Congress--they're good at reading polls.  Their livelihoods depend on it.  Every cycle, they're making life decisions on whether to run for reelection or to hang it up and get that K-Street money based on polls.  They are great poll consumers--far better than you or me.

Polls are the reason why you're seeing six Texas congressmen retire.  Polls are the reason you saw so many retirements in 2018.  The notion that Republican officeholders are somehow impervious to influence from polling data is absurd.  

[Celery Man 20961]

5 hours ago, Loco said:

Sounds like a shitty cigarette marking slogan 

The world is not burning.  It is toasted.

[Tuco 5076]

2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

So here's the deal if you're a Republican: You have two concerns in your path to reelection: a primary challenge and a general-election challenge.  And your only concern here is survival.

 

Any Republican worried about a primary challenge is more worried about what would happen in the general if he turns on Trump.  Trumpsters are more loyal to Trump than to any other Republican.  And they will not be swayed.  If that is 20% of otherwise reliable Republican voters, that means Trump can, at any point, in office or out, torpedo any Republican who leads by fewer than 10% on his opponent.  That's a ton of Republicans. Turning on Trump is political suicide.  I'm not going to change my vote from D to R to save someone who found his backbone in the 11th hour.  Not many anti-Trump people will.  

[4th&Five 41557]

 

[pyrohornIII 4815]

 

10 hours ago, Judge Roybeanbag said:

Or hit golf balls at him.  

Blue paintballs

 

9 hours ago, Celery Man said:

Anybody watch Black Mirrors? 

The National Anthem Episode? 

Spoiler

 

6 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

It funny that you guys think he needs legitimate votes to win the states he needs.  It's almost like you believe the GOP is not the party of voter suppression, out-rite  fraud, and any means necessary.

 

6 hours ago, GW Hayduke said:

The defeatist response to every little thing is so fucking old. 

 

6 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

seriously

 

5 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Oh it's definitely old.  I eagerly await the day it's not true.

I like to see the postive discussion.  I know the TDP is pushing more for door knocking to get the vote out, to help people register, or verified they are (still) registered.  Using data and apps like Register2Vote.org.  they are helping get people signed up and educated.  Then they are helping seniors sign up for voting by mail.  The campaign Beto ran woke things up, and made people realize their vote can actually matter.  If MJ can be as strong as Beto, then I think cornyn has a chance of going down.

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I am surrounded (in my neighborhood) by Trump supporters. None of them, after the usual chitchat, have seemed to be politically active other than voting for him. They have very few talking points (other than emails!!) and seem to just follow the GOP as if that is what Texans do. Brisket and a couple of others have indicated that many Republicans will disavow Trump publicly but push the button for him in the booth. I could see that happening with some of them on our street, but at least two of them I think would just stay home. They are the two that absolutely hated on Hillary. Without that animus, and with the negativity surrounded Trump, I could see them deciding to sit this one out. However, Cornyn may spoil the party because he will be on the ballot presuming he makes it past the primary and will be flooding the airwaves with his usual nonsense. The neighbor that is retired would go vote for Cornyn but the other one, would not leave work unless it was to vote against Hillary. She is not the type to bother with early voting, or voting before or after work.

So while that is not support for the Democrats, it isn't support for Trump exactly. There are quite a few "meh," people out there. His real base is pretty rabid, racist, and repugnant.

 

 

 

Sorry for spoiling your  DNI Whistleblower Party and going off topic.

 

Since we don't have straight ballot voting anymore, I suspect that might hurt dickhead too, since they can vote red without having to vote for him.

[Bama Chick 28596]

Imagine I’m typing my old rant about how the polls in 2016 were actually accurate and people who use the “I cannot trust polls because they were totally wrong in 2016” don’t know what they’re talking about.

[pantone159 719]

29 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Imagine I’m typing my old rant about how the polls in 2016 were actually accurate and people who use the “I cannot trust polls because they were totally wrong in 2016” don’t know what they’re talking about.

Yep. And I remember 538 making the very clear point, that even though Hillary seemed to have the edge, it was close enough to go either way. The election day results were a bitter disappointment but not a shock.

[jimmyjazz 45961]

4 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

I think it’s too late, but a part of me wonders if Trump will try to salvage things in Syria to keep Graham on his side.

But that’s based on Trump being calculating, and Graham finding his balls.

This scenario presumes that Lindsey Graham has a soul, which he clearly doesn't.  Graham points whichever way the wind blows.

[atomheartbevo 89675]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

This scenario presumes that Lindsey Graham has a soul, which he clearly doesn't.  Graham points whichever way the wind blows.

Something has Graham bugged about the Kurds thing.  He is poking at Trump, when Trump is under the most pressure he's ever been.  

Maybe he's got a bunch of pastors back home who are all over his ass about this kind of stuff.

[Brisketexan 105151]

This scenario presumes that Lindsey Graham has a soul, which he clearly doesn't.  Graham points whichever way the wind blows.

Huh. We should see if we can get the wind to blow straight towards hell.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

8 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Something has Graham bugged about the Kurds thing.  He is poking at Trump, when Trump is under the most pressure he's ever been.  

Maybe he's got a bunch of pastors back home who are all over his ass about this kind of stuff.

Marines and retired Marines maybe? IIRC Graham was Air Force, but there are quite a few military in SC. 

[Judge Roybeanbag 11819]

10 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

Imagine I’m typing my old rant about how the polls in 2016 were actually accurate and people who use the “I cannot trust polls because they were totally wrong in 2016” don’t know what they’re talking about.

Heard a snippet of right-wing local radio this morning while changing channels.  They were discussing the impeachment polls from Fox, and how you can't trust polls, they're always wrong.  Talking points still seem to be that the impeachment inquiry is invalid unless they take a vote, because no due process, Adam Schiff "lied" and should be impeached, the whistleblower is a liar and misrepresented the 'transcript".   What a bunch of maroons.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13514]

Pence refusing to say whether he knew or not about trump tying Ukrainian aid to a Biden investigation.  Hmms and haws about internal conversations.  I imagine pence will stop taking questions from “hostile” reporters.

 

[Chuckie Finster 22694]

The two most prevalent Republican talking points at the moment:

1) Impeaching a President is the most serious act Congress can take, and the Democrats should be ashamed for rushing through the process before gathering all of the information

2) The Democrats need to hold a vote before we take any of their requests for information seriously

Just in case anyone actually thought their concerns were legitimate.  

[Dnaguy 11969]

Rudy associates arrested.

 

The plot thickens

[The Royal We 3072]

Parnas getting pinched could indeed make things a bit more interesting here. 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

1 hour ago, Dnaguy said:

Rudy associates arrested.

 

The plot thickens

SDNY asserting some independence here- I bet Bill Barr isn’t too pleased

[Dnaguy 11969]

22 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

SDNY asserting some independence here- I bet Bill Barr isn’t too pleased

 

If this was Obama, I’m pretty sure Sean Hannity would have had a rage stoke on live TV. 

Crazy how far some have descended down the cult of Trump to be blind to just how egregious this whole thing is.

[jimmyjazz 45961]

Is there some sort of pathological ignorance whereby Trump and his minions think a Senator or Representative can be impeached?  Why is this even a thing now?  Impeachment is limited to "civil officers", and the Senate has ruled that legislators do not qualify.

Don't answer that.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

put differently in plain English 

[Pescado_Rojo 19416]

God I hope these two can connect the dots to the NRA 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

As an aside, I wonder if Alito still believes Citizens United did not open the door to foreign money in our elections. 

[hayden_horn 11362]

26 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

put differently in plain English 

i think that this might be why rudy has gone completely insane.

14 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

God I hope these two can connect the dots to the NRA 

and this. this is the lynchpin to why so many republicans are trump ass sniffers.

that dark russian nra money though.

[Horn Dog 9868]

12 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

As an aside, I wonder if Alito still believes Citizens United did not open the door to foreign money in our elections. 

Alito and the other supremes are not stupid.  They are fully aware of what they did.  They just truly don't give a shit.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

Pete Sessions huh

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

24 minutes ago, Pescado_Rojo said:

God I hope these two can connect the dots to the NRA 

Oh please.  Oh please. /farside 

[DixonHur 11307]

13 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

Huh. We should see if we can get the wind to blow straight towards hell.

Fuck that noise...I've been told by the evangelical crowd that I'm going to hell, and if that's true, I certainly don't want his kind ruining things down there like they have up here.

[tantric superman 4667]

23 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

Fuck that noise...I've been told by the evangelical crowd that I'm going to hell, and if that's true, I certainly don't want his kind ruining things down there like they have up here.

Before he was burned, a priest asked Hatuey (Chief on the Island of Hispaniola) if he would accept Jesus and go to heaven. Las Casas recalled the reaction of the chief:

[Hatuey], thinking a little, asked the religious man if Spaniards went to heaven. The religious man answered yes... The chief then said without further thought that he did not want to go there but to hell so as not to be where they were and where he would not see such cruel people. This is the name and honor that God and our faith have earned.

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

Twitter threads are tough to post, but this website makes it pretty easy to do so:

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182310788649738243.html?refreshed=yes

 

Quote

@popehat, I have a nightmare scenario to run by you:
There may be a new Saturday Night Massacre coming our way, courtesy of Donald Trump and Bill Barr. 

 

Quote

What if Trump fires Inspectors General to prevent new whistleblower allegations from emerging? Treasury (IRS), ICIG (Intelligence), and State come to mind, but who knows where other WBs are in play - DOJ (re Barr?), DOD (re Turkey?), or who knows, right? 

Quote

The IG Act of 1978 permits a Pres to fire an IG but only after giving 30-days' notice to Congress. Seems pretty safe, right?

legcounsel.house.gov/Comps/Inspecto…

 

Quote

What if I told you that DOJ OLC - yes, that OLC - opined in 1977 that the IG Act generally and the 30-day notice provision specifically violate separation of powers principles - the Jimmy Carter OLC, no less.

justice.gov/file/20961/dow…

 

Quote

Trump has been ranting that WBs are spies committing treason. So what if Barr asked his unitary-power-of-the-Executive-OLC to opine re whether Trump could fire IGs today, without providing 30-days' notice, to prevent spies from committing treason . . . 

. . . thus killing WB complaints working their ways across IG desks?

Getting worried, anyone? 

 

Quote

Not a lot has been written on this (exception - a blog post by NYU Law Prof @RickHills2 - prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/20… - which compares this to a law school final exam question!) 

 

Quote

If this is more than a theoretical possibility then WBs and IGs need to get moving, like right now, fast, ASAP.
@popehat, how do you see it? 

 

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

I just heard Rudy’s butthole tighten up

[kevwun 15790]

One of these fuckers is going to squeal and then it's all over but the crying.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33872]

one-way flights, no less

Edited October 10, 2019 by Longhorn_Fan68

[jimmyjazz 45961]

nothingberders

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

One of the things that lead to all of the Watergate shit was Bob Woodward getting sent to the courthouse on the break in story, and realizing all 5 defendents were represented by the same high powered attorney.

 

Today, all of these associates are represented by the same core group of Trump affiliated attorneys: Rudy, Dowd, DiGenova, Toensing. 

Plus, Dowd speaks (in Comic Sans, no less)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SimonBolivar 10958]

Time to get the gang back together again.

 

 

Which one will get to play Maggie Haberman? It's gotta be Hoffman

Edited October 10, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Dowd should have been charged with obstruction or conspiracy to obstruct in the Mueller probe when he took the fall for Trump’s incriminating tweet. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

seems a little on the nose

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Still pending:  the inevitable Paul Manafort connection with these two. 

[kevwun 15790]

Attorney client privilege doesn't apply when the communications involve a criminal conspiracy that the attorneys are party to.

[Francisco 2.0 32395]

3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Still pending:  the inevitable Paul Manafort connection with these two. 

Say no more:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Francisco 2.0

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

ooohthatsabingo.gif