Progressives (Liberals)

Only when he's mimicking you, cj.

I watched a good deal of the Democrat Team's presentation of their Impeachment case. Later (as I often do) I switched back & forth among Fox to CHH & MSNBC to get their contrasting views of the spectacle.
I found the endless and repetitive recitation by various members of the Schiff team, of the same wandering script, composed of isolated facts & factoids, woven together in a fabric of speculation and pseudo emotional hyperbole, to be boring, highly repetitive, and lacking in logical structure with respect to the legal issues involved. An amateurish spectacle, punctuated with childish episodes of unconvincing, sometimes smarmy efforts at emotion by the ever-indignant Rep. Schiff. I was also astounded by Schiff & Nadler's apparent serious lack of situational awareness and the likely effect on their Senate audience,of some things they said. They quickly turned the handful of Republican Senators who might have been accommodating to them into opponents - very stupid.

The most stunning part of all of this was the contrast between the descriptions of it all on the competing networks. The slavish praise ("eloquent, logical & brilliant" ) on MSNBC for what, to me, appeared an inept and unconvincing job by Schiff and Nadler, truly astounded me. Were they on another planet?? Fox was almost equally biased but far less transparently carried away by their partisanship.
Much of this is attributable to the highly partisan atmosphere that has, from the start attended this whole process (not to mention the reporting of the tedious and unproductive reporting of the Mueller Investigation that preceded it). Even so the contrast between the structureless, wandering, hyperbole-laced and tedious Democrat presentation, and the compact, logical and focused two hour Republican presentation that followed yesterday was stark in the extreme. We shall see what follows...

Diplomats and Ambassadors particularly serve at the President's pleasure. Normally most incoming Presidents replace most of them in a wholesale effort soon after taking office. That Trump didn't do this as well was a fault, likely a result of the inexperience of his campaign organization. I find your reverence for unelected Federal career bureaucrats to be both disingenuous and undeserved by most of them (I've had a good deal of experience with such bureaucrats in the Defense, State and Energy Departments and the EPA and other agencies as well). I'll agree that contemporary Progressives tend to like the bureaucrats who populate the regulatory administrative state they seek to create, however folks more interested in protecting our individual freedoms, getting needed things done, and more familiar with the usual self-serving incompetence of such bureaucracies usually take a very different view.

I never wished anyone dead, Blatham has on numerous occasions. I guess that is finally an original thought on his part.

You were an unelected military man so why do you think we should accept your opinion as fact?

Whether you accept my opinion or analysis of anything is a matter of indifference to me.

Is it worse to wish someone dead or to wish you could piss on their corpse?

What do you think? It does not matter to me, but I have an opinion. I stated a fact. What do you want to say?

It wasn't "unproductive". It revealed a lot about Russian meddling in the '16 election and, to the delight of Trump's supporters, found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Russian operatives and the Trump campaign. You should give it more respect!

It looks to me as if the two sides are focused on completely different things. I was hoping for a full-throated defense of everything the president did but it looks like it will be an attempt to frame it more as an abuse of process, not an abuse of power. They're missing the big chance to really clear Trump's record and totally increase his power and control over all the branches of government. By accepting the legitimacy of the investigation and then showing why Trump actually has the constitutional power to fight corruption overseas and employ foreign governments at will to weaken domestic political opposition he'll be well on his way to getting the 22nd Amendment repealed so he can rule forever!

Trump wants to change foreign policy. Trump wants to do what other presidents have done. He is not power hungry, he just wants to do things while he has it.

That was a fairly snide response. I hope you enjoyed writing it.

I recall an old Navy saying (one of many, it went.... "don't get in a fight with a pig: you both get dirty, but the pig likes it." It applies here.

From a Constitutional perspective, and simply based on the scanty evidence presented, the completely unfounded notion that Democrats alone knew the President's inner motives, in a matter for which there was also ample objective reason, and compelling national interest involved in investigating and stopping the ongoing criminality in a vulnerable but dependent foreign government all made the abuse of power charge quite ludicrous. The equally phony Obstruction of Congress charge represented nothing more than the constitutionally prescribed actions of separate elected branches of our government, for which the prescribed remedy is in the courts, and not impeachment by a Congress overreaching its authority. These factors are already quite clear to thinking, informed people, and their impact is likely to grow as the process heads towards the expected completion.

In response to being called amoral, you suggested Blatham was, for wishing someone dead...Something you haven’t done - suggesting that you are not amoral. Something you have done however, is say you would piss on stacked-up corpses.

It seemed to naturally beg the question to me - If you think wishing someone dead makes Blatham amoral, does wanting to piss on the dead make you amoral?

Just wanting to see if there’s any consistency to your moral judgement. Or if to you, morality, immorality or amorality is all relative to who’s doing the talking.

Do you consider yourself a moral person?

Except... Coldjoint didn't say anything of the sort.

I was the one who said that.

It was a perfectly appropriate reaction to progressive virtue signaling.

No, it's not.

I'm not spending much time following this impeachment circus, but I heard about moderate senators being so appalled by the Democrats' presentation that they actually violated impeachment rules and spoke out loud.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-threat/head-on-a-pike-republican-senators-object-after-schiff-cites-impeachment-threat-idUSKBN1ZO067

I don't see you being appalled by this though:

He has not paid the price, yet': Trump tweet about Schiff crossed the line, Democrats say
William Cummings USA TODAY

President Donald Trump has criticized, mocked and derided House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff on several occasions since taking office, but Democrats said the president crossed a line on Sunday, characterizing one of his tweets about the California Democrat as a "threat."

"Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man," Trump tweeted. "He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!"

Schiff, the lead House impeachment manager in the Senate trial of the president, mentioned the tweet during an appearance on NBC News' "Meet the Press." Defending his decision to cite a report during his arguments before the Senate that Trump had threatened Republicans who did not stand with him, Schiff said Trump was "wrathful and vindictive president."

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price, yet, for what he has done to our Country!
8:20 AM - Jan 26, 2020

"I don't think there's any doubt about it. And if you think there is, look at the president's tweets about me today, saying that I should pay a price," Schiff said.

"Do you take that as a threat?" host Chuck Todd asked.

"I think it's intended to be," Schiff replied.

White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham told Fox News that Schiff's characterization of the tweet as a threat was "ridiculous."

"The fact that he said that – that was grandstanding," Grisham said on "Media Buzz."

Grisham said Trump is a "counterpuncher" who "speaks in very unique ways" and says "what's on his mind." Though she said she had not spoken to the president about the tweet, she assumed he meant Schiff "hasn’t yet paid the price with the voters."

Schiff's fellow Democratic House impeachment managers also thought Trump's tweet went too far.

"I would just say to the American people, this is totally inappropriate. It is totally a threat, if you will, against the process of this investigation and of this trial," Rep. Val Demmings, D-Fla., said Sunday when asked about the tweet on MSNBC.

"We are defenders of the Constitution," Demings said, vowing that the impeachment managers would do their job "regardless of what inappropriate comments" or "threats that come out of the president."

"He really ought to get a grip and be a little more presidential," said Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday.

"The president has a tendency to say things that seem threatening to people," Lofgren said. "Adam Schiff is doing his job."

Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., said on "State of the Union" that, like Grisham, he thought Trump was implying Schiff "will be paying a price at the ballot box" and did not intend it as "some kind of intimidation."

"I don't think he's encouraging a death threat," Lankford said when asked if he was concerned that the president's tweets could inspire violence.

Lankford said he was more offended by Schiff's reference to the CBS report, in which an unnamed Trump source claimed Trump told senators "your head would be on a pike" if they voted against him in the trial.

"Schiff believes that the only reason that we act the way that we do is because the president's going to put our head on a pike," Lankford said. "He's invalidating all of our motives. He's saying, 'You're going to ignore all the facts, and you're only doing this because we're afraid of the president, rather than we will actually be fair in the process and actually look at the facts.'"

Senate impeachment trial:Fact-checking opening arguments of Trump's defense team

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
The Impeachment Hoax is a massive election interference the likes of which has never been seen before. In just two hours the Radical Left, Do Nothing Democrats have seen their phony case absolutely shredded. Shifty is now exposed for illegally making up my phone call, & more!
8:09 AM - Jan 26, 2020

On Sunday, Trump again criticized Schiff for paraphrasing the content of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, something he has railed against since September and which his legal team referenced when it opened its defense in the Senate impeachment trial on Saturday.

"Shifty is now exposed for illegally making up my phone call, & more!" Trump tweeted.

He also criticized "Meet the Press" host Todd, wondering why he would have Schiff on after "having been exposed as a fraud and corrupt."


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Sleepyeyes Chuck Todd of Meet the Corrupt Press, just had a “totally” softball interview with conman Adam Schiff, never even calling Shifty out on his fraudulent statement to Congress, where he made up ALL of the words of my conversation with the Ukrainian President! FAKE NEWS
11:07 AM - Jan 26, 2020

Trump accused Todd of conducting a "softball interview with conman Adam Schiff." He criticized him for "never even calling Shifty out on his fraudulent statement to Congress, where he made up ALL of the words of my conversation with the Ukrainian President."

Todd did ask Schiff if he regretted paraphrasing Trump's conversation. Schiff said he did not, before turning to a defense of his previous comments implying there had been evidence of collusion in 2016 between the Trump campaign and the Russian government, which was also cited by Trump's lawyers as evidence that Schiff lacked credibility.

You are correct to observe that I am not appalled by that.

Irrelevant.

Dang. I got you two mixed up. Don’t know HOW that could have happened. Your views are both so astute, striking and distinctly unique.

That wasn't my intention. I merely suggested that you shouldn't be so dismissive of the Mueller report; it cleared the Trump campaign from the suspicion of criminal conspiracy. That's not insignificant. Defenders of Trump point this out all the time.

And I think it's obvious that the president's defenders have jumped ship and are now trying to walk back Trump's actions. They're selling him short instead of backing him to the hilt. Where did all the defense of his quid pro quo go? Why aren't they defending his right to seek help from a foreign government in order to help him in an upcoming campaign? If they can establish that such actions are within his power think of how much more effectively he can implement his foreign policy. Why not give him what he needs?

Vivian Gornick Doesn’t Get the Hype

The 84-year-old memoirist has a newfound audience, but she’s skeptical of their adoration.