Comments

Equivocating on the impeachment vote — 57 Comments

1. House Rules Committee meets on impeachment. (C-Span)

   As my mother used to say “It’s enough to gag a maggot”. Watch with caution.

2. I think the language you quoted is a tad strong for you, Neo. The bottom line, hers and the quote’s, is the same.
   We are dealing with evil, Stalin-like evil, in the House Democrats. They will stoop ever so low, as low as needed, to destroy our Republic.

3. Who is the “whistleblower”? Real Clear Investigations’ Paul Sperry says everyone in Washington knows, but you don’t: and now you do.

4. Here’s the way it works–the President–whoever he or she is, and of whatever Party they are–can solicit ideas about what the United States Foreign Policy should be on a particular issue or towards a particular country from his advisors and others including, perhaps, members of Congress and, then, based on his education and experience, and at his sole discretion, the President decides what our foreign Policy should be–not his advisors, not his critics; the President alone is the “decider.”

   As I have written before, the Democrats are hoping that they can convince enough of the increasing percentage of our voters who are essentially clueless about past U.S. history, the Constitution, the operations of Congress, and it’s past precedents, that what they are doing is an actual “Impeachment,” and, moreover, that by carrying out the perfectly legitimate business of conducting the Foreign Policy of the United States– a duty which the Constitution vests primarily/solely in the President –i.e. talking to and negotiating with other foreign leaders and setting policy (conduct that all other Presidents have engaged in) President Trump has somehow committed a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

   One way it now appears that the Democrats are trying to create the impression that President Trump has committed a grave offense by engaging in legitimate Foreign Policy, is to bring in people who disagree with President Trump’s Foreign Policy and his conduct of it–people who are not the President, and who, therefore, have no Constitutional authority to formulate or to conduct U.S. Foreign Policy–to testify about how what President Trump has been doing in the area of Foreign Policy somehow amounts to a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

   I happen to think that the Democrats will fail in this effort and that, moreover, a majority of the electorate knows what an unfair Kangaroo court, a set up, looks like, and they will not be happy.

5. Cicero:

   I’m surprised you think the language I quoted was too strong for me. I thought it was too weak, in that it didn’t give the Democrats enough credit for organizing this, for Machiavellian planning for various contingencies.

6. P.S.–It is pretty obvious that the arrogant and entitled members of the State Department have apparently always had their own preferred “foreign policy,” which State has tried to conduct no matter who the current President is, or what his Foreign Policy might be.

   Their position is, “we are at our desks today, and we will still be at our desks when the current occupant of the White House–and each future occupant–is headed out of town with a bunch of moving vans to go back home–we are permanent, these Presidents are only temporary.”

7. When I consider the situation from the Democrats’ view, I think this impeachment circus is the best they’ve got. In addition to the positive reasons stated above, I offer the negative reasons:

   (1) The always imminent Barr/Durham investigations will indeed emerge and the circus offers cover and counterattacks.

   (2) What else can the Democratic House do to impress the public? Put the Green New Deal to a vote? Or any of the other proud initiatives their candidates are debating?

8. And if he was even a tiny bit dirty in the criminal sense…
   he would have been gone first 6 months
   instead.. their ideological belief that they are are dirty
   because theirs are…

   had them waste the whole time looking for things that arent there
   trying to manufacture things that arent there

   and not build a position for a campaign or good opposition to run

   so…i said this a lot, and no one wanted to believe that either
   too much to lose playing games when your not part of a cabal of bad

   you think a man who went to a military academy may have figured this out long ago, just as my son and myself know… (he is navy). … its a magical thing that so many refuse to believe…

   hey neo.. how many years did i get to prepare for my loss of work because i was honest, up and up and regardless of how i felt about what they were doing, they paid and deserved what they paid for?

   hmmmm…
   thats how i knew.. its been one of my favs for myself
   and i have some friends in politics now i am old that also, its their thing
   sadly.. the good old boy network is not good ole boys..
   its good people , which the left makes derogatory, and open to attack
   but good people helping good people? too hard to believe
   cabals, networks, scheming etc… much easier

   shame there are so few of us

9. I agree with huxley, the left has nothing going for them beyond the impeachment charade. Their clown car race to determine who is left of Lenin is chaotic at best. Their policy positions are fantasy. Unless the economy goes south, Trump will win a second term. Dems in red house districts must be very nervous. We live in an interesting time.

10. A whole lot of us on the Right are like ‘COCKROACHES’ we won’t come out until the lights are off and then, by golly here we are. I suspect that when the election comes Trump has a very good chance of winning it all, the popular and electoral because a lot of regular folks who can barely stand Trump cannot stand his opposition whoever that might be and they have done a piss poor job of setting up any kind of real opposition, just a bunch of murky I don’t like Trump people without a real champion. Trump might win it once more, who knew?

11. Tyranny is their byword.

    Fed. 10, Madison:

    “AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.”

12. Snow on Pine on October 30, 2019 at 7:11 pm said:
    Here’s the way it works… the President decides what our foreign Policy should be–not his advisors, not his critics; the President alone is the “decider.”
    * * *
    ..or at least, that’s the way it is supposed to work.
    Your second comment describes how it actually goes down:

    Snow on Pine on October 30, 2019 at 7:25 pm said:
    P.S.–It is pretty obvious that the arrogant and entitled members of the State Department have apparently always had their own preferred “foreign policy,” which State has tried to conduct no matter who the current President is, or what his Foreign Policy might be.
    * * *
    Supporting article for Snow’s position (and incidentally, my own):

    https://spectator.org/how-james-comeys-revenge-is-changing-our-constitution/

    How James Comey’s Revenge Is Changing Our Constitution
    The battle over who runs the federal government.
    by E. DONALD ELLIOTT
    October 28, 2019, 1:13 PM

    My Yale Law School colleague Bruce Ackerman has proposed a theory of constitutional change that he calls “constitutional moments.” The idea was spelled out in a series of lectures, later published in the Yale Law Journal and in Ackerman’s multi-volume history of the Constitution, We the People; it is impossible to do it justice in a sentence or two. For our purposes it will suffice to say that the essence of Ackerman’s theory is that constitutions are changed not only by the formal amendment process but also when prominent political actors act contrary to the existing constitution but the people accept and validate their actions, thereby establishing a new constitutional norm.
    Ackerman’s theory does not appeal to originalists, who believe the only legitimate way to change our written Constitution is through the Article V process of amendments passed by supermajorities in the House and Senate and ratified by three-fourths of the states. Leaving aside its constitutional pedigree,Ackerman’s theory does describe accurately how the meaning of constitutions may sometimes change in practice not only in the U.S. but also around the world. Political power ultimately resides in The People, and what they are willing to accept becomes the new normal.

    We are currently in the midst of a constitutional moment in Ackerman’s sense. The stakes were defined by Harvard Law School constitutional law professor Noah Feldman in a perceptive op-ed titled “Trump’s firing of Comey is a crisis of American rule of law.”

    Feldman begins by acknowledging that “Technically, President Donald Trump was within his constitutional rights … when he fired FBI Director James Comey.” Ah, what a wonderful word “technically” is; it is used to dismiss the old law that is about to be consigned to the dustbin of history. The real law, according to Feldman, is not the words written on ancient parchment but the law in action that has developed under our living constitution: “The erosion of the independence of law enforcement is thus a blow to the unwritten constitutional norm of political neutrality. It doesn’t violate the separation of powers. But it violates a norm that in its own way is almost as important.”
    …
    Like it or not, a powerful norm has developed in Washington that some matters must be left to the career staff — the so-called “administrative state” — the self-perpetuating bureaucracy of Platonic Guardians who see themselves as above politics and believe that they are really running the country.

    Temporary occupants of political office offend the careerists at their peril.
    …

    …
    The career staff knows how to get rid of those of whom they disapprove.

    That’s what is really at stake in the current constitutional moment — who is running the country, the elected president or the “swamp” that he promised to drain?
    …
    President Trump has done much of which I do not approve, but if we start removing presidents from office for the thought crime of taking actions that are well within their official powers under the Constitution but with motives that the opposition considers inappropriate, it will be a constitutional moment of fundamental significance.
    …
    Our system has been defined by a powerful elected president. Stay tuned; that may be about to change. Early in this administration I heard Newt Gingrich opine that President Trump would put up with the career bureaucracy telling him what he could and could not do for only about 60 days, and then (according to Gingrich) “he is going to break this town.”
    Break or be broken. We’ll see.

13. Do you believe that government agencies follow their own agendas in preference to that of the President, especially if he is a Republican?
    Angelo Codevilla does:

    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/culture-news/292763/angelo-codevilla

    [about midway in a very long interview; first of all the context —]

    David Samuels: You were working on the Hill when Jonathan Pollard was thrown in jail for life to cover up the crimes of Aldrich Ames and others.

    Angelo Codevilla: Oh, that’s a really big subject.
    …
    What I know, which a lot of other people did not know, is that given his clearances, he could not possibly have done the things on the basis of which he was sentenced. It was simply impossible for him to do that. And every time I pointed that out to people in intelligence, they would make an argument which was untenable.
    …
    Furthermore, Pollard was sentenced on the basis of a memorandum, which is yet secret. For our judicial system, to sentence anyone on the basis of any secret proceeding is about as un-American as anything yet.
    …
    The CIA has all kinds of social-political prejudices. The first thing I learned that I did not expect to learn when I went to my job on the Hill was just how controlled and defined by certain social norms the CIA is. That it is a kind of club that secures itself through co-option. And that co-option involves the furtherance of a whole bunch of prejudices.

    So, the straightforward political prejudices are, in no particular order: liberalism, prejudice in favor of the Arabs. You probably are not aware of the corporate prejudices that existed in the favor of the Soviet Union. And they were very, very powerful at CIA, as opposed to DIA or NSA.

    To give you an example of these political, pro-Arab prejudices and how they work, when specifically relevant to the Pollard case: When Israel bombed Iraq, the CIA came to us and they formed this committee, and railed at the Israelis for having spoiled this wonderful relationship we had with this wonderful man, Saddam Hussein. I remember at the time sitting next to Pat Moynihan who gave me the elbow and chuckle.

    I would say that the majority, by far, of the intelligence committee, laughed at—this is Bobby Ray Inman. And they were cheering on Israel. Hey, bomb more!

    But CIA was coming to notify us that in fact they were cutting off the flow of certain intelligence to Israel. And they were doing so in great anger. Now these items of intelligence which were being cut off were precisely the items of intelligence that Jonathan Pollard supplied to them.
    …
    They were hurt and they took it out on Pollard.
    …
    I mean I saw number one, that the reason for the CIA’s anger was wrong. And in fact, the United States had every reason to cheer what the Israelis did. And most Americans did, as a matter of fact. And later on, the subsequent administration thanked the Israelis for having done precisely what they did.

    So the CIA was wrong in that regard. And they were doubly wrong in convincing that imbecile, Caspar Weinberger, to write that un-American memorandum. And that judge should be damned by his profession for having paid attention to it. You don’t sentence people on the basis of a secret memorandum. You just don’t do that in America.

14. The entire interview was vintage Codevilla, on a wide range of subjects.
    (Edit was AWOL or I would have added this above)

    https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/culture-news/292763/angelo-codevilla

    THE CODEVILLA TAPES
    The historian of American statecraft and spycraft and conservative political philosopher Angelo Codevilla talks about the ruling elite, Jonathan Pollard, and the rise of the techno-surveillance state—and the consequent demise of the American Empire

    By David Samuels
    October 24, 2019 • 12:00 AM

    Samuels references Codevilla’s seminal essay, from which we at Neo’s have seen many trenchant quotes over the years. (link below)

    Some people have suggested that, in that essay, he predicted Donald Trump’s candidacy, if not also his election, but he says he only described the conditions that were making someone like Trump eventually inevitable.

    David Samuels: In 2010, you wrote an article, which then became a book, in which you predicted the rise of someone like Donald Trump as well as the political chaos and stripping away of institutional authority that we’ve lived through since. Did you think your prediction would come true so quickly?

    Angelo Codevilla: I didn’t predict anything. I described a situation which had already come into existence. Namely, that the United States has developed a ruling class that sees itself as distinct from the raw masses of the rest of America. That the distinction that they saw, and which had come to exist, between these classes, comprised tastes and habits as well as ideas. Above all, that it had to do with the relative attachment, or lack thereof, of each of these classes to government.

    [Samuels]: One of the things that struck me about your original piece was your portrait of the American elite as a single class that seamlessly spans both the Democratic and Republican parties.

    [Codevilla:] Of course, yes. Not in exactly the same way, though; what I said was that the Democrats were the senior partners in the ruling class. The Republicans are the junior partners.

    The reason being that the American ruling class was built by or under the Democratic Party. First, under Woodrow Wilson and then later under Franklin Roosevelt. It was a ruling class that prized above all its intellectual superiority over the ruled. And that saw itself as the natural carriers of scientific knowledge, as the class that was naturally best able to run society and was therefore entitled to run society.

    The Republican members of the ruling class aspire to that sort of intellectual status or reputation. And they have shared a taste of this ruling class. But they are not part of the same party, and as such, are constantly trying to get closer to the senior partners. As the junior members of the ruling class, they are not nearly as tied to government as the Democrats are. And therefore, their elite prerogatives are not safe.

    Classic essay they are talking about:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20150714235155/http:/spectator.org/articles/39326/americas-ruling-class-and-perils-revolution

    America’s Ruling Class — And the Perils of Revolution
    The only serious opposition to this arrogant Ruling Party is coming not from feckless Republicans but from what might be called the Country Party — and its vision is revolutionary. Our special Summer Issue cover story.

    By Angelo M. Codevilla – From the July 2010 – August 2010 issue

    Excerpts would not do it justice.

15. I could quote Codevilla all night because his interview with Samuel’s covers so many topics Neo has addressed recently, but instead I will go with our own Artfldgr.

    Back on another post, someone commented that the dgr’s comments were like e e cummings’ poems — this one actually does reach a poetic flow!
    [I’ve taken the liberty of making a few grammar-maven edits, but only for clarification of meaning, so far as I can interpret it. ]

    Artfldgr on October 30, 2019 at 7:50 pm said:
    And if he was even a tiny bit dirty in the criminal sense…
    he would have been gone first 6 months
    instead.. their ideological belief that [you] are dirty
    because [they] are…

    had them waste the whole time looking for things that arent there
    trying to manufacture things that arent there

    and not build a position for a campaign or good opposition to run

    so…i said this a lot, and no one wanted to believe that either
    too much to lose playing games when [you’re] not part of a cabal of bad

    In fact, this is the second poem of the dgr’s that I have noticed since that comment; the other one can be found here:

    https://www.thenewneo.com/2019/10/18/the-impeachment-inquiry-fooling-enough-of-the-people-enough-of-the-time/

    Artfldgr on October 18, 2019 at 6:37 pm said:

    I wonder what the limits of propaganda are

    They are unlimited…
    and nearly impossible to remove or correct…
    they seldom require everyone to believe
    but there are some, which everyone did, and still does
    and some new ones everyone believes that we believe or pretend to

    A lie is a cooperative act

    So to know the limits, it depends on what is wanted
    and how many want it when the lie is doing its work.

    There is another form it takes, which depends on replacing or erasing
    where it inserts itself without anyone knowing

    sometimes the latter is used to prime the former
    sometimes the seed is planted and unfulfilled till its a mass desire

    regardless of all that, what it is, its limits, how it works, etc..
    depend completely on what the objective or what the method is..

16. Since we’re dispensing with a whole bunch of traditions why doesn’t the House vote to impeach without hearings and then the Senate vote whether or not to remove without hearings. This way impeachment becomes similar to a vote of no confidence and we eliminate all the histrionics. From my very quick googling only that bare minimum is mandated by the constitution.

17. Eva Marie:

    They can indeed do it that way, but it is not like a no confidence vote.

18. The impeachment-palooza seems to be convincing 100% of my progressive friends who have been stark raving since the election.

    Recently, several times already, someone will blurt “impeachment” randomly in conversation and then snicker weirdly. They’re positive they’re just saying what everyone is really thinking. It’s disturbing.

19. FWIW, “There are more poets in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”

    https://www.amazon.com/Beautiful-Poetry-Donald-Trump-Canons/dp/1786892278

    The Beautiful Poetry of Donald Trump (Canons) Hardcover – August 31, 2017
    by Robert Sears (Author)
    What if there’s a hidden dimension to Donald Trump; a sensitive, poetic side? Driven by this question, Rob Sears began combing Trump’s words for signs of poetry.

    What he found was a revelation. By simply taking the 45th President of the United States’ tweets and transcripts, cutting them up and reordering them, Sears unearthed a trove of beautiful verse that was just waiting to be discovered.

    This groundbreaking collection will give readers a glimpse of Trump’s innermost thoughts and feelings on everything from the nature of truth, to what he hates about Lord Sugar. And it will reveal a hitherto hidden Donald, who may surprise and delight both students and critics alike.

    This timely publication also includes Sears’ scholarly footnotes and introduction, in which he excavates new critical angles and insights into the President’s poetry which the casual reader might initially overlook.

    And I have this one; subtitle “Make Poetry Great Again” —

    https://townhall.com/columnists/micahrate/2017/10/03/make-poetry-great-again-n2389695

    Bigly: Donald Trump in Verse
    …
    In the introduction to the book, Long reveals what makes President Trump’s poetry different from every other poet; Trump is revealing and honest. He doesn’t take the time to phrase his words carefully, and he is not as structured as his businessman persona appears.

    Often President Trump talks and tweets in the third-person. Though many people take notice and even mock the president for this at times, when he does so it reveals a different side of him. When Donald Trump talks about Donald Trump, it appears as if he’s analyzing his life from the outside looking in. These poems show where Donald Trump is most like himself and, as argued by some, at his best.

20. The author of this New Yorker review doesn’t even notice that she is one of Long’s targets, despite the headline, and reacts precisely on-script.

    https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/making-poetry-great-again-a-book-that-uses-trumps-words-to-troll-liberals

    “Making Poetry Great Again”: A Book That Uses Trump’s Words to Troll Liberals
    By Rebecca MeadOctober 4, 2017

    …Long, who is a producer as well as a writer—he earned his most prestigious credit a quarter century ago, on “Cheers”—is one of Hollywood’s declared Republicans. This is a position that necessitates a contrarian streak,
    …
    What kind of writer finds it amusing to recast the President’s most narcissistic, inflammatory, bigoted statements in the form of jokes? And what kind of reader is entertained by such a project?
    A suggestion can be found in Long’s choice of Toby Young, the conservative British journalist and satirist, to contribute a foreword. Young, who once wrote a book chronicling his failure to thrive as a journalist and as a human being in New York, writes that “it is an ongoing scandal of American letters that the pointy-heads and high-ups who style themselves guardians of good taste have refused to give Trump so much as a Wallace Stevens award, let alone a Pulitzer.” An introduction and afterword are provided by H. W. Crocker III, the conservative American writer, whose books include “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Civil War” …and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the British Empire” … Crocker writes, “We have not heard nearly enough about how Trump’s poetry has overturned the corrupt academic-leftist monopoly on literature that has enshrined the unintelligible.”

    [Look, Horatio! The shades of the academic journal hoaxers stand before us!]

    It’s clear by now that the target of Long’s satire is not the book’s subject, the President. Rather, Long’s purpose is to make fun of poetry itself, and by extension, the imagined reader of poetry—the kind of thoughtful, liberal intellectual who might be expected to take offense at this book’s very premise.
    …
    Long dismissed Trump’s candidacy during the campaign: a year ago he appeared on Fox News, confidently asserting that the Republican nominee stood no chance of being elected in November. Since then, he has sought to find a point of entry to the reshaped political reality. Just before the Inauguration, Long contributed a guest column to Variety in which he advised his fellow-denizens of Hollywood on how they might handle Trump’s unwelcome ascent. “It seems to me that if there’s any community that knows how to deal with irrational, misinformed narcissists with way too much power, it’s us,” he wrote.
    …
    But “Bigly” suggests that there is no limit to the nihilism of Trump’s enablers, even those who would ostensibly seek to poke fun at him. The President’s lies cannot be recast as spoof poetic license; to reframe his intellectual incoherence as deliberate, purposeful work is a joke we can’t afford to take. “Bigly” is an example of expedient political normalization dressed up in the honorable clothes of political satire. It is the jocular sanctioning, on the part of the right, of the right kind of tyrant.

    I think she is just jealous.
    Here is one of the poems quoted in the post.

    I don’t read much.
    Mostly I read contracts,
    But usually my lawyers
    Do most of the work.
    There are too many pages.

    I’ve read worse poems in the pages of the New Yorker.

21. AesopFan notes, “Do you believe that government agencies follow their own agendas in preference to that of the President, especially if he is a Republican?”

    Of course they do, and they have been doing so ever increasingly after the institution of the federal Civil Service code in the late 1800s, passed, curiously enough, to assure stability and reduce party-linked turnover of government employees consequent to new elections. That institutionalization was tremendously supported by passage of the Amendment (16th?) that allowed income taxation (with the public sucked in by the assertion that the federal income tax would only apply to a few people, the ultra-wealthy).

    The Progressives thus seized the reins of power in the very early twentieth century, never intending to relinquish them ever, under any circumstance.

22. You’re right. It’s only similar to a no confidence vote if the President’s party has a majority in one of the 2 houses of Congress. When the President does not have a majority in either house that’s when crazy can take over – and will if the Democrats ever gain control of both houses again with a Republican President. So I’m thinking that impeachment now is a good move for Pres. Trump. He will be protected as well as he can be from impeachment in his second term if he loses the Senate as well as the House. Shhhh. Please don’t tell the Dems!

23. Eva Marie on October 30, 2019 at 10:16 pm said:
    Since we’re dispensing with a whole bunch of traditions why doesn’t the House vote to impeach without hearings and then the Senate vote whether or not to remove without hearings.
    * * *
    Maybe Pelosi can just bury the impeachment charges by substituting them for the content of a bill with a different title, and the Senate can deem him convicted with only 51 votes.

    https://www.briansussman.com/politics/how-obamacare-became-law/

24. Here is a copy of Nancy Pelosi’s resolution formalizing procedures for the impeachment inquiry. Ostensibly, it protects the rights of the minority, that is, the Republicans, but a close reading shows it to be a sham.

    1) Adam Schiff is directing witnesses not to answer certain questions by the Republicans, making it impossible for them to know which witnesses to call and shielding himself from accusations of collusion with the whistleblower to manufacture a complaint. The chair directing a witness, who already has legal counsel, not to answer is highly improper.

    2) The ranking minority member on these committees can only act with the concurrence of the chair of the committee. Should the minority member’s request be denied, the appeal is to the whole committee, which, being stacked by Democrats, will vote it down.

    3) The resolution places no limits or constraints on Democrats — it doesn’t address their behavior at all. For example, should Republicans wish to call a witness, they must submit detailed written justification 72 hours in advance. There’s no such requirement for Democrats. And, the chair can simply reject the Republicans’ request.

    4) It says the chair of the committee MAY make transcripts of depositions publicly available in electronic form. Such transcripts may be redacted for “sensitive information.” This is just a weasely way of authorizing Schiff to continue his selective leaks from the proceedings of his committee. It does not REQUIRE Schiff to make transcripts public. Nor does it define what constitutes “sensitive information,” presumably leaving it to Schiff’s judgment. The resolution does not require Schiff to make the transcripts available to the whole House.

    This is lame!

    https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20191028/BILLS-116-HRes660.pdf

25. I’ve been ruminating about what a vote against Pelosi’s so-called impeachment resolution would mean. What would a NO vote mean?

    The resolution assumes a continuation of the “impeachment investigations” that are already occurring without the vote of the full House, indeed AGAINST the vote of the full House taken in July of this year.

    The resolution merely adds a false veneer of transparency to the current proceedings in the intelligence committee.

    The resolution nowhere states the criminal offense that Trump is supposed to have committed, nor has any statement from the House.

    So, would a NO vote be a vote against the new procedures put in place? If so, the current “impeachment investigations” could continue as is, without modification. A vote YES is a vote simply to add some sham procedures designed to fool the gullible to think the ongoing “impeachment investigations” have now reached some new level of legitimacy. Neither a Yes or No vote stops this sham impeachment inquiry.

    I am very disappointed with the talking heads who call this a vote to formalize the impeachment inquiry. It is illegitimate but incredibly shrewd and devious.

26. What costal ‘intellectuals’ never realize is that salt of the earth flyover folks, aka deplorables, don’t give a damn what you think. Sorry to be harsh, but yadda, yadda. We don’t need you, you need the energy and food we, we deplorble workers, produce that keeps you fed and warm in winter. Thank you for never being thankful and letting us know how much we are deplorableles we are in your eyes. Your opionons and hatered are duly noted.

    We want to be free in how we choose to live within our county, township. We don’t want to be under the thumb! Back off, or learn country boys and girls can survive and slit you throat whilst you sleep. The anger and resentment in deplorables is intense, and burning hot. We’re not going back into meek submission. Your time is over.

27. @AesopFan
    Political power ultimately resides in The People, and what they are willing to accept becomes the new normal.

    This is why deceit is the go to weapon of the political and social powers.

28. A fella named Hart Seeley pulled a similar “found poetry” trick with Donald Rumsfeld in 2009: “Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld.” In Seeley’s case he was attempting ridicule of his subject.

    For some reason Rumsfeld’s riff on “unknown unknowns” was a moment of utter hilarity for those who didn’t like the George W. Bush administration. As far as I’m concerned Rumsfeld stated something obvious, though not often articulated, to any thoughtful person faced with serious decisions. (It’s also a standard part of the Landmark Forum guest seminar, but that’s another story.)

    Anyway, Seeley selected a bunch of Rumsfeld’s quotes, chopped them into ragged-right lines, and voila, poetry.

    I can go there. Part of a poet’s job is to hear the poetry found in the wild.

    However, lest we forget the true possibilities of poetry, here’s the one and only e.e. cummings bowing before God:
    ___________________________________________________

    i thank You God for most this amazing
    day:for the leaping greenly spirits of trees
    and a blue true dream of sky;and for everything
    which is natural which is infinite which is yes

    (i who have died am alive again today,
    and this is the sun’s birthday;this is the birth
    day of life and of love and wings:and of the gay
    great happening illimitably earth)

    how should tasting touching hearing seeing
    breathing any—lifted from the no
    of all nothing—human merely being
    doubt unimaginable You?

    (now the ears of my ears awake and
    now the eyes of my eyes are opened)

    –e.e. cummings
    __________________________________________

    People are often distracted by cummings’ lower-case style (though not with God!) and typographical tricks, but the above is a legitimate Shakespearean sonnet, albeit with relaxed rhymes.

29. C-Span livestream [YouTube]: House Floor impeachment “inquiry” debate, vote (starts at 9:00 am eastern time, sez there)

30. Could they get Waffle House to sponsor the proceedings?

31. “Could they get Waffle House to sponsor the proceedings?”

    AAA Septic Tank Cleaners Co. would be more apropos, I’d think.

32. Byron York, Washington Examiner: The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act

    House Democrats plan to pass their Trump impeachment resolution Thursday. Its full description is “Directing certain committees to continue their ongoing investigations as part of the existing House of Representatives inquiry into whether sufficient grounds exist for the House of Representatives to exercise its Constitutional power to impeach Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, and for other purposes.”

    A better and much shorter title would be The Adam Schiff Empowerment Act.

    The resolution gives Rep. Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, far-reaching power over the Trump impeachment. Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains the ultimate authority, of course, but, like a chairman of the board choosing a chief executive officer, she has picked Schiff to run the show. And in the resolution, Democrats will give him near-total control.

33. The Hill: Speaker Nancy Pelosi — “Outing the whistleblower is an unpatriotic action. They shouldn’t even go near that.”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/status/1189537437447528450

    Ned Ryun: “Wait. So you’re saying we shouldn’t talk about Eric Ciaramella?? You mean the Ciaramella guy who worked for Brennan? The same Ciaramella guy who has a relationship with Biden?? That Eric Ciaramella?? The hyper partisan Dem CIA dude?? I dunno. Seems kinda interesting to me. . .”

    https://mobile.twitter.com/nedryun/status/1189732388450033666

    heh

34. “Do you believe that government agencies follow their own agendas in preference to that of the President, especially if he is a Republican?”

    I had dinner Tuesday night with my daughter who is a 20 year FBI agent. She leans left but told me in September 2016 that she would NOT vote for Hillary. She is a natural Hillary voter, female, single, federal employee, so I took this to mean that the FBI grapevine knows Hillary is dirty.
    Anyway, I mentioned I am reading (listening to the audio)Kim Strassel’s new book. I mentioned the campaign against Scott Pruit at EPA which drove him out. She said “But he wanted to destroy the EPA !” This is how they think. It didn’t matter to her that California is burning down because of policies that he opposed. She means well but assumes that career employees must know best.

35. This is very important in the debate today; I have called the House GOP leadership and the President. The House rules changed under this resolution will not permit exculpatory info from being given to the POTUS team.. Rep. Lesko pf AZ tried to amend the resolution and it was rejected  That is unconstitutional under the Brady Ruling revised in 1972:  The Representatives I called did not know of the extension of the 1963 Brady ruling to include impeachments.In Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153 (U.S. 1972), the Supreme Court extended the prosecution’s obligations under Brady to disclosure of impeachment evidence. The Supreme Court clarified that all impeachment evidence, even if not a prior statement by a witness falls within the Brady rule. White House number  202-456-1111 All GOP numbers  http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/mcapdir.aspx

36. Thank G*d that Eric Ciaramella remains anonymous.

37. Now republicans are saying its a soviet style impeachment
    as i pointed out, its a soviet start chamber… not a royal one!!!
    neo connected it more to the royal historical one

    but this is not going to fly…
    they do NOT want a precedence of impeachment by party domination
    if republicans dominate under democrat president, they can now kick them out
    how? easy… most things that are positive a president does, makes them look good

    but note… they even have a military officer coming forward who happens to be the child of parents from the soviet union… deep cover? oh, not possible…really? in our nation and changes post reorganization in 1995 (not fall), opened up everything… literally everything..

    and that last law against communism… well, i told you that that would make a difference later.. welcome to later

    oh… and even more is out there… and not in the mainstream
    but its in the areas that neo avoids… the defectors, the others..
    which are never a major part of the conversation in meaningful way
    even if they predict whats going on from 15 years ago
    even if they point out that they were part of the plan and detailed it
    even if they had a 95% accuracy rate, including the fall and other things

    why bother with that… not like WE have a 95% accuracy rate?
    well i do… i listen to them and take it all in..
    i dont leave large holes like swiss cheeze and plow through as if the hole dont matter… it does matter.
    you ever try to go in a straight line from x to z with holes?

    in case you guys dont get it
    you lost your country…
    you have zero way to recover
    and the wolves are waiting at the door to pick over the carcass

    its gone… period.. and you cant assess that as you wont put things TOGETHER
    ie… looking at parts wont tell you where the whole is going.

38. By July, Colonel Vindman had grown deeply concerned that administration officials were pressuring Mr. Zelensky to investigate Mr. Biden. That concern only intensified, he told investigators, when he listened in to the now-famous July 25 phone conversation between Mr. Zelensky and Mr. Trump.

    Vindman emigrated to the U.S. from Ukraine when he was a child with his family, per the New York Times. He speaks Ukrainian as well as Russian.

    and his hero status could be helped by externals to build credibility..
    he would not be the first…

    “It seems very clear that he is incredibly concerned about Ukrainian defense. I don’t know that he’s concerned about American policy, but his main mission was to make sure that the Ukraine got those weapons. We all have an affinity to our homeland where we came from. … He has an affinity I think for the Ukraine. He speaks Ukrainian. He came from the country, and he wants to make sure they’re safe and free.” Republican Rep. Sean Duffy

    We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, emigrated with his family — young. He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine.” – Brian Kilmeade

    Here we have a U.S. national security official who is advising Ukraine while working inside the White House — apparently against the president’s interest and usually they spoke in English. Isn’t that kind of an interesting angle on this story?”
    Laura Ingraham

    “I find that astounding and some people might call that espionage.”
    Deputy attorney general John Yoo replied to Ingraham

39. I suspect Trump is spending time on the silly impeachment Dem stuff because of
    .
    .
    puppies.

    Trump is treating the Dem news and the Dem House a bit like news puppies, chasing after the balls he throws to provoke. (Now I can’t find link to that idea.)

    One reason to provoke Dems is so as to have the Dem media screaming about small stuff, the fluffy stuff. While the real stuff gets done with less publicity.

    Trump gives up “good publicity”, which would most likely be twisted by Dem media into half-bad publicity, for lots of Dem whining about nothingburgers.

    With or without a House vote, Trump ain’t gonna be impeached unless there’s a crime. So far, for years now, it’s just been fishing. With “collusion” not true about Trump – BUT was actual for Obama’s FBI/CIA/NSA goons to help Hillary. With quid pro quo (sort-of?) not explicitly true of Trump with Ukraine, but boasted about by VP Biden. To protect the huge salary/ bribes for his son in phony baloney jobs.

    Still, not holding my breath about indictments; yet also hopeful that Durham’s criminal investigation leads to some indictments. Soon, like … before Christmas?

40. “I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen, and I was worried about the implications for the U.S. government’s support of Ukraine,” he states.

    Vindman “realized that if Ukraine pursued an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma,” where Hunter Biden served on the board, “it would likely be interpreted as a partisan play which would undoubtedly result in Ukraine losing the bipartisan support it has thus far maintained.”.

    I did not think it was proper to demand that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen

    Why not? Clinton has a treaty he signed for it…
    https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text
    Treaty Between the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters with Annex, signed at Kiev on July 22, 1998, and with an Exchange of Notes signed on September 30, 1999, which provides for its provisional application.

    Viktor Shokin: Ukraine’s prosecutor general from 2015 to 2016, accused of failing to curb corruption. Joe Biden and a chorus of Western officials, including 3 GOP senators, demanded he be fired.

    Biden bragging at CFR (council of foreign relations) about blackmailing ukraine
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3109&v=Q0_AqpdwqK4

    of course… you dont know the point of CFR and Trilateral commission (which uses a triskelion…a three pointed swastika)… and Bilderbergs, which is a game of influence… putting policy makers in the same room as people of influence… not a conspiracy… but a poisoning by company kept and ideas like viruses

    [do note that microsoft doesnt know the word triskelion or bilderberg… funny… they at one time didnt know misandry, but fixed that… its as if they dont really exist.. and the software clues you… funny, eh?]

    maybe the past few years of russia building their people up to dislike the US has a point in the near future…maybe all those weapons, have a reason to be made as germany did also.. and teamed up with who?

    Launched in 2017, the Prince Vladimir submarine is the first upgraded model of Russia’s Borei class of ballistic missile submarines, designed to be more manoeuvrable and quieter than previous models. … Other Borei class submarines already in service include the Yury Dolgoruky and the Alexander Nevsky

    YESTERDAY: Russian nuclear sub successfully test-launches intercontinental ballistic missile

    The Borei-class submarine ship was submerged during the launch.

    During the drills, Russia’s nuclear submarines launched intercontinental ballistic missiles from the Barents Sea and the Sea of Okhotsk, and a land-based Yars ICBM was launched from the military’s facility in Plesetsk, in northwestern Russia.

    -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    China is making 1,000-UAV drone swarms now
    These autonomous swarms can make decisions on how and when to repair themselves / For 9 minutes, 1,180 drones danced and blinked out an aerial show. It was cool. It was also an interesting look into the potential future of aviation.

    Take, for instance, the datalink and software used. It lets more than 1,000 flying robots coordinate autonomously and synchronize movements, with a flight deviancy of a mere 2 centimeters horizontally and 1 centimeter vertically. If something goes wrong and a drone can’t reach its programmed position, it automatically lands.

    China tests army of tiny drone ships that can ‘shark swarm’ enemies during sea battles
    Video footage released of tests shows drones sailing in a flotilla, avoiding each other as they change direction rapidly.

    The fleet then arranges to form the two Chinese characters “junmin”, a reference to cooperation between the civil and defence sectors, before joining in the shape of an aircraft carrier.

    [i designed a new propulsion system for such things… but the USA is not interested… not interested in a propulsion system that is pressure invariant? lowers parts to a few dozen from a few thousand? silent? faster than current? etc… go figure… ]

41. We also know he was born in the Soviet Union, emigrated with his family — young. He tends to feel simpatico with the Ukraine.” – Brian Kilmeade

    Sort of like Max Boot, another Soviet immigrant. Hmmmm

42. Sort of like Max Boot, another Soviet immigrant. Hmmmm

    Boot intermarried. His wife, who has a glam BigLaw partnership and whose practice incorporates arranging M & A deals, is the primary earner in his household. They live in Westchester and commute into Manhattan. He’s apparently estranged from his father, who lives in Britain. Father and son have rather dissimilar published views. If Boot – fils is loyal to anything, it’s to his immediate social circle and the prejudices abroad in that circle. (The NeverTrump bias at National Review and Commentary notwithstanding, they ceased to publish his commentary in mid- 2017).

43. “I find that astounding and some people might call that espionage.”
    Deputy attorney general John Yoo replied to Ingraham

    John Yoo, Ricochet: On Lt. Colonel Vindaman and Espionage

    I want to clear up a misconception of my remarks on the Laura Ingraham show last night. I did not accuse Lt. Col. Vindaman of committing the crime of espionage.

    I have tremendous respect for a decorated officer of the U.S. Army and a veteran of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. What I was addressing was a report that Ukrainian officials had sought to contact Vindaman for advice on how to handle Rudy Giuliani acting as a presidential envoy. I meant to say that this sounded like an espionage operation by the Ukrainians. I think it deliberately misconstrues my words to say that the separate issue of the phone call between the US and Ukrainian president through the chain of command constitutes espionage by Vindaman, or that Vindaman is some kind of double agent.

    Yoo got dragged (am I using “dragged” correctly there?), didn’t like it and responded with the above.

44. Fox:

    The measure passed largely along party lines, 232-196. Two Democrats defected on the vote.

45. To me, what is happening is crystal clear. This is not about Republican vs. Democrat. This is about the Washington Federal Bureaucracy facing, what to them is, an existential threat. Trump promised to “drain the swamp”. The swamp denizens are fighting back. The Swamp Things are represented in both parties, in the media, in corporations, in non-governmental organizations, and in labor unions. They are every special interest group that thrives on largesse from the public treasury and special protections and subsidies that their lobbyists obtained for them. And Trump is threatening ALL of them, ALL at once!

    So, they are fighting back tooth and claw with every thing they have. Assuming we make it to the next election, if Trump wins a second term and takes back the House, for the Swamp Things, it will be a holocaust. Trump will finally be free to start doing some serious house cleaning.

46. Go feminism!!!! Self exterminating was something Hitler could only dream of!!!
    a method of removal in which the only one the victim can blame is themselves!!!!

    Near 20% below replacement has forced them to import people to replace the people who “vote wrong”!!

    And there is nothing you can do unless you can convince the ladies to stop hating men… which they wont.. this is the fourth generation whose adults have done nothing but spread hate and disparagement and legal unequalness..

    i guess you forgot what alexis de toqueville said about america and EQUALITY all the way back from 1830:
    “Americans are so enamored of equality, they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.”

    and you have to get rid of the people who defend it

    What better way than to convince the people who create the next generation to not do so, and poison when they do? Much cleaner than ovens, no protests, and just build it on eugenics movement and tell them, no, its not that any more!!!

    As birthrates fall, countries will be forced to adapt or fall behind
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-global-fertility-crash/

    At least two children per woman—that’s what’s needed to ensure a stable population from generation to generation. In the 1960s, the fertility rate was five live births per woman. By 2017 it had fallen to 2.43, close to that critical threshold.

    ah… but that included the high fertility immigrants and hides the demographics!!!
    which they ALWAYs do…and so, no way to argue it, even with Neo! there is always the contrarian lie to hold up and deny action.. and… inaction is all they need to win..

    all this stuff your seeing about facebook, and google, etc.
    gleichschaltung

    Women in France may have won suffrage only in 1945, but they’ve rapidly acquired rights and status. They’re now close to parity with men in income and are highly educated on average. This is due partly to generous benefits such as public day cares, called crèches, that accept babies as young as 3 months.

    yes… do you think they let cows rear their kids? no, they take them and free them up to make up the labor of the bulls who are kept to a minimum… but no bulls, no freedom…

    Under organic standards, calves are separated from their mothers after birth, but are always kept in groups and must be given cow’s milk for their first 12 weeks. “Calves hate being weaned and cows hate their calves being taken away, whether after one day or five months

    The word “cull” was probably an unfortunate term associated with fall herd reduction. A scan through some computer dictionaries or Webster’s Dictionary shows the definition of the word “cull” as rather offensive. Webster says that if we use the word “cull” as a noun, we are referring to “something rejected, especially as being inferior or worthless.” The word also can be used as an action verb meaning to “select from a group or to identify and remove the culls.”

    ah.. so they are culling the herd..

    “When I became pregnant [with my first child], I had already done a job interview for a new post, so I had to tell my future employer that I’d arrive four months later than planned, but it didn’t set me back. For my second child, I had applied for a post managing a bigger team. I told my employer, but they said that didn’t affect their decision. And for the third, nobody said anything either when I told them.

    “Having children forces you to be more efficient. Before having children, I would often stay late in the evenings. I find that when you manage a team, being a boss that doesn’t stay too late removes some pressure from people—it’s a routine that is quite healthy for everyone.

    read the rest and remember
    https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-global-fertility-crash/

    and marxist views:
    With the passage of the means of production into common property, the individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children become a public matter. Society takes care of all children equally, irrespective of whether they are born in wedlock or not. Thus, the anxiety about the ‘consequences’, which is today the most important social factor – both moral and economic – that hinders a girl from giving herself freely to the man she loves disappears.

    why do that with someone you hate and love at the same time?
    and now, are indifferent to?

47. Schiff, Nadler, Pelosi and a bunch of other leading demokrats should be arrested, indicted and made to stand trial for treason.
    If found guilty, they should be executed by hanging on a large gallows (e.g., see those used for Lincoln’s assassins ).
    The dems are engaging in a treasonous activity; they have zero evidence of any criminal actions by the president and are merely attempting – by pseudo-legal means – a coup d’etat.

    No Constitutional Republic, or any form of representative democracy, can stand once the governed lose faith in those governing and in those institutions established by those governing.
    The demokrats know this, but they do not care. What matters to them is the pursuit and attainment of absolute power.
    And in this regard, they are no different then a Hitler, Lenin/Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, Chavez/Maduro, etc.
    Each of these individuals sought absolute power at the expense of the citizenry and it was the citizenry that paid the ultimate price.

    And now you know why there is a Second Amendment to the Constitution .

48. Sean Davis, The Federalist:

    A top National Security Council (NSC) official who listened to President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky testified to Congress today that he did not believe Trump had discussed anything illegal during the conversation.

    “I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed,” former NSC Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison testified today, according to a record of his remarks obtained by The Federalist.

49. I never used to understand feminist complaints about “gaslighting.” Maybe it was because I had never experienced it in my own life but it always seemed like whining.

    I now get it because the Democrats and the media are the bad boyfriend who are trying to gaslight the American people into thinking Donald Trump did something terrible. We’ve seen the transcript of the call. We’ve seen video of Biden boasting that he essentially extorted a policy change out of Ukraine. We all KNOW there’s nothing to this. But the Democrats and the media keep trying to convince us there is.

    Now, I don’t give a crap about the Democrats and the media but if you had any sort of respect or affection for them, it would be uncomfortable to see them making such a fuss and refuse to go along.

    Ladies, you have my sympathy.

    Mike

50. I’ve just read about the identity of the so-called whistle blower and his background ties to Brennan, and his pre-election support of Democrats, and his removal from his holdover position in the White House because of his suspect activities in the White House.

    This is the hearsay source which prompted Dems to the point where we are now?

    I knew that the Democrats had largely become amoral, calculating, power mad scum. But even I did not suspect this. How can one hope to live at peace among creatures such as they?

    When did so many of our fellow citizens abandon every trace of decency and honor and mutate into petty, if often ugly and misshapen, little godlets? This is where inference and evidence of evil is replaced by the undeniable empirical experience of it; and I feel like puking … or going to war. I’m not certain which.

51. Benny Johnson, twitter: Rep. Doug Collins to Schiff — “Come to the Judiciary Committee, be the first witness, and take every question asked of you… Starting with your own involvement with the Whistleblower.”

    We deserve to know the truth. (Video at link)

52. “When did so many of our fellow citizens abandon every trace of decency and honor and mutate into petty, if often ugly and misshapen, little godlets? This is where inference and evidence of evil is replaced by the undeniable empirical experience of it; and I feel like puking … or going to war. I’m not certain which.”

    Well, I reacted to the vote, and the latest news, and taking exactly the same view as DNW, by oiling all our firearms. Due to travel this summer we didn’t get to the range at all, but hope to rectify that in the spring. The guns needed some care as they were getting a bit dry from storage. Also will suggest to my wife that we look into a good 9mm pistol. We have a Sig .22, but their 9mm version would be nice to have. I’m getting more nervous about Nov3 next year. The Dems seem to have lost all sense.

53. Protecting themselves by tearing the country apart.

    They must really be afraid of that Barr/Durham/Horowitz “something” that’s coming down the pike.

    Very, very afraid.

    But one can feel their angst, their nervousness, their despair, their hate, their destructiveness.

    Their absolute nihilism.

    Yes, one might be sympathetic:
    After all, their “Insurance Policy”, ingenious as it was, wasn’t able to stop Trump.
    Plan B (Mueller) went up in smoke.
    So now it’s time for Plan C—mock impeachment—with all the ultra-hysteria, intense hatred and sheer destructiveness that it will engender.

    (They’re masters at “destructive”.)

    Yes, to protect themselves, they will have to keep the decibel level at the highest possible pitch, and for as long as possible (at least until the primaries in the upcoming election cycle, and likely up until the elections themselves).

    Still, they figure it’s well worth it—if it saves them from being exposed as the criminals they are.

    Even as it tears the country apart….

    (Of course, they can always blame THAT on Trump. And they will. And they know full well, that the MSM will do their absolute best to lend a helping hand.)

    Interesting times?
    (To be sure, China—and a host of others—won’t shed any tears if Trump is successfully eliminated. Or at least hog-tied. Hmmm.)

54. They must really be afraid

    This is such a good point Barry.

    Many today are forgetting. The more dominant current explanation today seems to be “it’s about the election”.

    So, yes, but only secondarily about the election. The primary cause is still a scramble to escape accountability for the soft coup. They know what they’ve done, they know they’re guilty dead to rights and they’re scared shitless.

    Anything to distract; anything to lay a predicate they can use to fool people to believe the accounting coming is “purely” political revenge on Trump’s part.

55. The Dems have been talking about impeachment since the day Trump was elected, but they only went into high gear after the Ukraine call. It seems clear to me that the possibility of dumping Biden was the key in the ignition.

56. huxley on October 31, 2019 at 8:33 am said:
    A fella named Hart Seeley pulled a similar “found poetry” trick with Donald Rumsfeld in 2009: “Pieces of Intelligence: The Existential Poetry of Donald H. Rumsfeld.” In Seeley’s case he was attempting ridicule of his subject.

    For some reason Rumsfeld’s riff on “unknown unknowns” was a moment of utter hilarity for those who didn’t like the George W. Bush administration. As far as I’m concerned Rumsfeld stated something obvious, though not often articulated, to any thoughtful person faced with serious decisions. (It’s also a standard part of the Landmark Forum guest seminar, but that’s another story.)
    * * *
    Lay the LM story on us sometime — I also thought the people laughing at Rumsfeld were a bit dotty; maybe that should have been a clue to the latent insanity they are now evidencing.

    On the cummings poem – how interesting that you chose that particular one, which is one of the few I remember from HS (he was certainly part of our English curriculum) – because our choir sang a lovely setting of it.

    I can’t find that one on the internet, although I found 3 other settings sung by various choirs and a scholarly article indicating that there are even more extant.

    https://www.academia.edu/1536793/_I_Hear_Singing_Musical_Treatment_in_Three_Choral_Settings_of_E.E._Cummingss_i_thank_You_God_for_most_this_amazing_Compared_with_Speech_Patterns_of_the_Poet

    Here is cummings himself instead.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axH9A28CTjw

57. AesopFan: To my mind that is the greatest of e.e. cummings’ poems. Though I will never forget my “Say what?” moment when I first read “She being Brand-new”, which set a record, still unequaled, for sly, ribald humor in a poem.

    https://genius.com/E-e-cummings-she-being-brand-annotated

    I have never heard cummings read. That was a treat indeed. He is one of the few poets IMO who does justice to his words aloud. (There is a conceit among poets that the true way to experience a poem is by hearing it read, preferably by the poet. No doubt true in the past, but not so much today by a long shot.)

    As to the Landmark Forum, not much to tell. The “unknown unknowns” bit was the centerpiece of the Landmark pitch to enroll guests, i.e. taking the Forum would allow one to locate the unknown unknowns in one’s life. So when I heard that line from Rumsfeld, I wondered if he had attended a Forum Introduction or knew someone involved in Landmark or had even taken the Forum. Some high-powered people have.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>