PBS link attached - great public institution.
Free talk about the impeachment hearings. This is making me a little sad.
OKAY has ANYBODY been WATCHING the SONDLAND testimony? Holy shit.
I listened to much of it, pretty wild stuff. I'll be interested to see who does and does not comply with subpoenas in the coming weeks. It looks like Giuliani is fucked, to put it mildly.
As somebody who is from NY, couldn't have happened to a nicer guy!
So far, the long-lasting government shutdown in late January of 2019 tanked Trump's approval rating lower than news of the recent Ukrainian bribery/extortion and impeachment proceedings. We could see Trump acquitted in the Senate, unless public opinion changes. I don't think it will, anymore. The information infrastructure has become almost completely fractured along party lines, exacerbated by foreign agitators and social media echo chambers, and further inflamed by the least truthful president ever to serve. How can we trust the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election? Trump has shown that he's willing to stop at nothing to stay in power, as his evading arrest likely depends on staying POTUS. The GOP have shown that they're willing to enable him beyond what anyone once thought possible only one or two presidencies ago. If Trump is not removed from office by impeachment, he will be further emboldened to ensure his re-election in creative new ways. If Trump is not removed from office by impeachment OR the 2020 election, and it takes until 2022 for Democrats to nab the Senate, we're in trouble. Or maybe the Dems never flip the Senate, SCOTUS rules that a president is not only un-indictable, but un-investigatable, and our little democratic republic experiment is donezo. We get Trump or Trump Jr. "winning" 2024, then they unironically quote Palpatine's I AM TEH SENATE line as they abolish the legislative branch or whatever. Backing up to 2020, the scheme detailed in kleinbl00's WaPo link could very well play out. Joe Biden is unencumbered by a Senate position, but the GOP thinks he's already been thoroughly smeared by accusations inside their media spheres, so they'll probably focus on Booker, Harris, Sanders, Warren. They don't understand that only inside their disinfo bubble has Biden been tarnished, though it is admittedly quite a regrettably large "bubble". I agree that Joe's son, Hunter, should have never agreed to serve on Burisma's board of directors, but if we're investigating nepotism or violations of the emoluments clause, the Trump administration probably overshadows anything prior by roughly an order of magnitude, at least. I'm not a Biden fan, but I'm forced to support essentially any candidate opposing Trump. Regrettable. I share your despair, bfx. If 40% of the country somehow still supports Trump, I think we have a serious crisis of culture, stemming primarily from a very entrenched and divided information distribution network. EDIT: Basically anyone who participates in impeachment proceedings discussions get a circledot, because I have almost no one in my face-to-face, everyday, personal life paying close enough attention to this thing. I feel super shitty to in any way to entangle Hubski in some need for therapy that I may have(?), but I repeatedly arrive at the judgement that we are objectively at a type of low point in U.S. politics, driven overwhelmingly by the GOP and Trump. If anyone needs specifics, just pose a relevant question, I would be happy to respond, but it might take me a day or two, apologies. Very busy.
Yeah, as much as I'd like to think that people in general don't like Trump, I am constantly reminded that there are plenty of Trump supporters out where I live. Lotta people who like guns will vote R even if they don't really care for Trump. I wonder if we'll see some anti-abortion legislation come up soon or if they're going to pick a different hot topic to drum up support for instead. I don't know what to make of it. I grew up in a really conservative family, so I understand more or less how they think, but it still boggles my mind that I've grown out of that mindset and they haven't moved an inch and I don't think they ever will. What can you do with that? How do you get people to care enough to learn about stuff outside their bubble? Honestly I've been trying not to think about it too much. I subscribed to https://www.impeachment.fyi/ and that's all the reading I do. I'll worry about the election when the Dems know more or less what candidate they're actually going to run.
I was raised southern Baptist, but just kinda gradually became a scientist. I've managed to somewhat liberalize my parents over the last decade. The more likely explanation is that they simply stayed "conservative", while Trump, the GOP, and Fox yanked the steering wheel towards fascistland. I've tried to talk with Trump folks about why he is unfit to serve, or the crimes he has committed, etc., but there isn't anything constructive here to say, except: don't try to broach politics whatsoever, at this point. No good will come of it. Amid the completely incoherent White House impeachment messaging strategy, you have to wonder how much longer the alt-right information megabubble can last. But then you have to ask yourself, "wait, how many times have I wondered this before?", and decide whether you want to keep believing public opinion of Trump will eventually shift below some threshold far enough that the GOP members of Congress finally agree to exercise even just one iota of oversight. Anyway, here's a look at someone who almost assuredly still supports Trump (this is not a joke): Classic.
People will vote for something they believe in. People voted for Trump because they believed the system needed a kick in the nuts. They're seeing it. am_unition's comment points out that the government shutdown hurt Trump's approval because it put a lot of people out of work. Political allegiance is very much identity. The question being asked by everyone is whether enough Americans will identify with Trump in 2020 - because that determines how you run, democrat or republican. You don't need to be politically savvy to have an opinion about whether your life has gotten better or worse under Trump. In 2016, he was the protest vote. In 2020, he's the establishment vote. These are dynamics that can be modeled but they can't be easily predicted.Lotta people who like guns will vote R even if they don't really care for Trump.
Here's the thing though: you and I knew a vote for Trump was really a vote for the establishment back in 2016. Sure, he mucked about a bit with the executive branch's administration, but his policies pretty consistently tend to favor large corporations and the rich. But if people still believe he's the protest vote, the underdog, in 2020, they'll still vote for him even if their life has gotten worse since 2016 because it's better than the Dems winning. I'd be happy to be proven wrong here, but I'm pretty cynical about people in 2020 suddenly stepping back, taking an evenhanded look at policy, and basing their vote on that rather than what plays on Fox News.
Right. We weren't going to vote for him anyway. We weren't going to vote for the Republicans regardless. We had to be talked into holding our noses and voting for Hilary, the most establishment candidate in the history of establishment candidates (barring Biden). But the whole world spent 2016 arguing Donald Trump had no business running for president. ...is it better than not voting? More people turned out to flip Congress blue than turned out to punish Johnson for the Civil Rights Act. We're not talking about people "stepping back, taking an evenhanded look at policy, and basing their vote on that". We're talking about people endorsing the past four years enough to take time off work to sign their name to it. Or, alternatively, doing the same to say "this stops now." I'm not saying it's in the bag. I'm saying that the dynamics at play are not necessarily the ones people keep bringing up and fatigue is definitely setting in at the Trump rallies.Here's the thing though: you and I knew a vote for Trump was really a vote for the establishment back in 2016. Sure, he mucked about a bit with the executive branch's administration, but his policies pretty consistently tend to favor large corporations and the rich.
But if people still believe he's the protest vote, the underdog, in 2020, they'll still vote for him even if their life has gotten worse since 2016 because it's better than the Dems winning.
There's fortunately a big swing between "do you approve of the President" and "do you approve of the President enough to vote for him and everything on his slate." This is what all the "defense of marriage" bills at the state level were about in 2006: Turdblossom knew that "the base" was willing to sign lipservice to what Bush had going on but not enough to go out to the polls so they threw in the "do you hate fags? Because we hate fags" bills to get 'em out for the midterms. He spent 2006 between 30 and 45% approval. I don't think acquittal of Trump even matters. What we're really watching is the life cycle of populism. And I can guarantee you that McConnell & Co are gonna catch every Pokemon before they leave the field voluntarily.
Maybe, but I'm a little less pessimistic about this than I was earlier on. Looking at polls, it's a near thing, but more people support impeachment than don't. That's significant.
So hold on because I feel like this is illustrating the point I’m making to kB and which am_Unition seems to share. Sure, yeah more people support impeachment and the impeachment process starting. Looking at those polls 80 fuckin’ percent of the polled Republican-identifying poll participants do not support either!! The aggregate is because of overwhelming support by Democrats and strong enough support from Independents. My biggest fear is we’ve lost 40% of the country. That is significant.
I agree that it's significant, but to me the (arguably) more important question is whether it's new. I think we often have an idealized notion of what U.S. history has been like, even those of us who don't long for a return to some greatness that never actually was.
We've traded perspectives, sounds like. I hadn't seen that particular graph, but I'd anticipated/pined for a gradual shift of more and more in favor of impeachment as the last six weeks went by, and thought we'd be somewhere around 60%+ by now. I'm jaded. Wayyyy jaded. The Ukrainian affair is so obviously, so objectively, unmistakably, both impeachable and criminal. But the lines in the sand are drawn. There is nothing Trump could do to lose ~60% of his supporters, roughly 25% of the country. It's unclear how extreme of an action is required to lose the 40% of Trump supporters open to the possibility of changing their minds, 'cuz if the Ukraine stuff isn't enough, I shudder to think what is.
So true. I've posted a few lawfareblog.com links since the impeachment push began. It can get pretty dense, but not prohibitively technical, imho. Wittes in particular is a favorite. For a lot of lawfare's more legally gray/controversial topics, there will be rebuttal pieces, and sometimes it goes back-and-forth a couple times, with four or more pieces giving both sides of an argument. The parent organization, The Brookings Institute, is generally considered nonpartisan. Since early October, there have been zero pieces (that I'm aware of) providing law-based arguments that bolsters Trump in any way. Or really, any piece defending Trump whatsoever. Increasingly, all existing defenses involve omission of facts, at best, but usually outright lying and willful, proud ignorance.
I am extremely glad that the Democratic party retook the House or this would never have gotten to this point.
At least until it gets to the Senate. I honestly wonder if the GOP has considered the implications of automatically separating the contestants into "serious" and "unserious" categories and then giving the "serious" candidates an opportunity to play Mr. Smith Goes To Washington on every network for weeks at a time. If I had the choice between the MSNBC clown car or THE FUCKING SENATE for my opponents' grandstanding, I'ma go with the clown car every time.It's clear the GOP would choose to stop this if possible,
My counterargument is that the meat of all this (Trump's extortion/bribing of Zelensky for political dirt by withholding $390 of military aid designed to help Ukraine fight Russia) was clearly laid out in the late-September WSJ report on the whistleblower and phone call. The following week, Trump released the transcript, Pelosi announced a formalized impeachment, and public opinion on impeachment shifted by ~8% points. Since then, despite all of the corroborating evidence gathered in closed door depositions from ~20 witnesses, public opinion has only shifted by about the amount of uncertainty, i.e. it really hasn't. The public hearings mostly just confirm news reports about the closed door testimony, although of course I understand how necessary they are in the impeachment process. I'm worried that without more bombshells* unveiled during the public hearings, the lack of "new" information will undermine the significance of what the public already knows, when it should have already been utterly devastating to Trump's base. I'm very suspicious of the quoted "21% changed their minds after the hearings" figure in the ABC news poll. I haven't seen that reflected in other polls. *Bombshells like, oh, by the way, Sondland spoke with Trump on an unsecured personal cellphone inside a Ukrainian restaurant, allowing multiple other people around to hear Trump's fixation on having Zelensky open an investigation, and Sondland's assurance that Zelensky would comply. There's so much to unpackage here. Let's start by pointing out the simple fact that a recording of this call gives its owner leverage over POTUS. Then we can talk about how Sondland already lied for Trump in his closed deposition, and later revised his testimony after the fact. I dare Sondland to perjure himself again this Wednesday, on TV, but he'll probably plead the fifth, or obstruct the questioning somehow.
Here's a taste of what's to come: Gordon Sondland Stepped In ‘and Things Went Really Off the Rails’ Bolton immediately cut the get-together short, witnesses said, in an attempt to save what had until then been a normal meeting. But what’s been less clear—until now—is what happened moments later, when Sondland guided the Ukrainians into the White House’s Ward Room. Three individuals familiar with the conversation described what happened next. Sondland continued to not just relay, but demanded ferociously, that the Ukrainians open the Biden investigations, saying it was the only chance for Washington and Kyiv to develop any further meaningful relationship, two individuals with knowledge of Sondland’s overtures said. Sondland raised his voice several times in his attempt to persuade the Ukrainian officials sitting across from him, including Andriy Yermak, a close aide to Zelensky, and Zelensky’s then-national security adviser Oleksandr Danylyuk. One individual told The Daily Beast that Sondland “got very emotional,” adding that “there was lots of yelling.” Another individual called the meeting “erratic” and said the Ukrainians began to ignore Sondland and instead turned to Fiona Hill, who ran the National Security Council’s Russia desk at the time, for clarification on Washington’s messaging. The same Fiona Hill exposed to a smear campaign likely because of her lack of perceived loyalty to Trump. Sondland's testimony on Wednesday is probably regarded as the most important, for both sides. Sondland is probably in hell right now, still contemplating whether to perjure himself or not. Hopefully he realizes that he's already implicated in the largest criminal scheme in modern U.S. presidential history, and although stonewalling or perjury will breathe some desperately needed life into the GOP, there is an onslaught of other witnesses connecting the dots for the rest of us, such that Sondland's performance will only affect public opinion. It's just unfortunate so much public opinion is rooted in GOP congressional reps. continuing to provide fodder for conservative media while derelict in their duty of oversight of the executive.It’s been widely noted in testimonies by multiple House impeachment witnesses that Sondland interrupted the conversation between Bolton and the Ukrainians when he suggested that the Kyiv officials open investigations into Hunter Biden and the gas company he worked for if they wanted President Volodymyr Zelensky to land a White House meeting with Donald Trump.
Been following it as closely as I can, our news networks don't really show much so Reddit threads are my go to (unfortunately). Am glad it's started, but between watching this and our own government flop about with promises it never had a chance of fulfilling, politics is burning me out. I'll always be fascinated at how the left vs right in America is truly a divide - in NZ, our right would still register on the American left.