Rocky Balboa, is it? I remember that movie where he pretended to have bone spurs so he could dodge fighting in Vietnam and concentrate on being a racist real estate mogul while he raped women on the side and perfected his toupee. True American hero.

Italian fascism on the rise

The impeachment hearings will ramp up tomorrow after a brief rest. The hearing will be chaired by 14-term congressman Jerry Nadler. The White House is refusing to participate.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/it-s-nadler-s-turn-take-trump-again-n1091991

In other news, it has been reported that AG Bill Barr disagrees with some of the findings in the Horowitz report, specifically that the FBI had enough probable cause to investigate then-candidate donald Trump. According to a lawyer, this is because the Durham investigation has “unearthed some evidence that supports Mr. Barr’s uncertainty of the inspector general’s findings”.

Mr. Barr’s skepticism could place more pressure on John H. Durham — the federal prosecutor who is conducting a separate criminal inquiry into the roots of the Russia investigation — to find evidence backing Mr. Barr’s position. Mr. Durham has already unearthed some evidence that supports Mr. Barr’s uncertainty of the inspector general’s findings, according to a lawyer involved in the Durham inquiry.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/barr-inspector-general-report-russia.html

Is that related to the lawyer who changed the wording in an email? I think I recall reading that Horowitz referred it to Durham as potentially criminal but concluded that the FISA warrant didn’t depend on it.

I’ll look for a source when I’m at a desktop.

Is that related to the lawyer who changed the wording in an email? I think I recall reading that Horowitz referred it to Durham as potentially criminal but concluded that the FISA warrant didn’t depend on it.

I’ll look for a source when I’m at a desktop.

According to the NYT, it has to do with the genesis of the investigation:

Attorney General William P. Barr has told Justice Department officials that he is skeptical of a conclusion by the department’s inspector general that the F.B.I. had sufficient information to open the investigation into whether any Trump associates conspired with Russia during the 2016 presidential race, according to two people familiar with the conversations.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/02/us/politics/barr-inspector-general-report-russia.html

Here's the article I recalled:

CNN reported Thursday night (and the Washington Post and New York Times later confirmed) that Inspector General Michael Horowitz has found that a former FBI lawyer might have altered a document tied to the 2016 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) application for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page. Critically, according to US officials who spoke to the Post, the Inspector General did not find that this possible alteration affected “the overall validity” or legal basis for the wiretap application.

Without seeing the report — which finally has a due date of December 9 — it’s hard to gauge exactly how significant this alleged alteration is, but Horowitz has reportedly referred this evidence to John Durham, the prosecutor appointed by Attorney General William Barr to separately review the 2016 Russia investigation. Durham’s inquiry has since expanded to become a criminal probe.

Yeah, you might be right.

Barr’s supposed uncertainty of Horowitz’s conclusions has already led some Trumpers such as Hannity to preemptively dismiss the coming IG report. We’ll see in another week when the report drops.

The HIC has released a draft of their impeachment report.

Summary

Full

Looks like Nunes is implicated in Giuliani and Parnas' efforts in Ukraine.

So Trump finally went to Afghanistan and says he is holding talks with the Taleban. I'm not so sure how significant the approaches will be and what is the final outcome, but it is interesting to see what happens. Being the POTUS of the classic "hawk" party, Trump is in a position to make radical departures from the old. After all, radical departures is his middle name. However what his real abilities would be here are questionable. At least there might be a chance.

It's good when the American President reminds with a visit that the country is still fighting an insurgency in Afghanistan (and basically that a military victory is nowhere at sight). The longest war in American history.

Trump in Afghanistan:

Trump recently (re)tweeted that president Zelensky repeatedly stated that there was 'no pressure' and 'no position of quid pro quo'...

I just wanted to take a moment to point out how silly it is to ask the person/nation being extorted whether or not they're being extorted, given that while Trump remains the president, he must still be worked with.

Why would Zelensky shoot himself in the foot by taking a stand against Trump? What if the impeachment fails (likely) and Trump wins another 4 years? Don't you think Zelensky would be a bit worried about future issues from the white-house for outing Trump?

Even if he could be sure that his involvement would result in a Trump impeachment, this sends the message to other western leaders that he is willing to *narc* on them given the opportunity. Because leaders do have to work together, backstabbing Trump could make other leaders much more reluctant to deal with him directly. Expediency seems pretty important to the Ukraine, which is why parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing is just stupid.

I just wanted to take a moment to point out how silly it is to ask the person/nation being extorted whether or not they're being extorted, given that while Trump remains the president, he must still be worked with.

Perhaps, but it’s even more silly to pretend there was a crime when the alleged victim says there wasn’t one. Zelensky said there was no pressure on various occasions, only one of which was said in Trump’s presence.

Extortion? There was zero coercion or threats in the phone call. Rather, there was jokes and congratulations.

Rather, there was jokes and congratulations. — NOS4A2

Trump wanted Zelensky to do him a favor though...

Trump did obstruct the aid, Ukraine knew, knew they needed the aid, and they knew what Trump wanted. The situation Ukraine is in means that withholding the aid amounts to coercion.

Perhaps, but it’s even more silly to pretend there was a crime when the alleged victim says there wasn’t one. Zelensky said there was no pressure on various occasions, only one of which was said in Trump’s presence. — NOS4A2

It doesn't matter whether he said it in Trump's presence or not. That he made statement means nothing because Trump is still the president. The accusation is that Trump tried to coerce Zelensky into making a public statement in support of Trump by witholding aid and a WH meeting, and the evidence against this is a subsequent public statement Zelensky made in support of Trump? Don't you see the stupidity there?

Again, if it is true Zelensky was being pressured, saying so publicly would amount to a declaration of war against Donald himself, which would create too many complications for them. Why would Zelensky publicly attack Trump even if the accusations are true?

A favor? Oh my. Is it or is it not fair to ask a favor of someone you give weaponry and money to? Especially one of the most corrupt countries on the planet?

It does matter if Zelensky said it in Trump’s presence because it refutes your claim that Trump is “parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing”. He’s not.

Yes, that’s the accusation based on the presumptions of a few bureaucrats who read too much New York Times.

An interview? Oh my. So what threat did Trump make?

A favor? Oh my. Is it or is it not fair to ask a favor of someone you give weaponry and money to? — NOS4A2

But Trump doesn't give Ukraine money, the U.S itself does (via congress in this case), so not only is Trump leveraging US property for his own gain, he is compromising the national interests of America and her allies to do so. On top of that, the favor Trump wanted amounts to interference in the 2020 election, which is yet another impeachable cherry on top of it all.

It does matter if Zelensky said it in Trump’s presence because it refutes your claim that Trump “parading Zelensky around like a Stockholm syndrom'd toddler at their parents divorce hearing”. He’s not. — NOS4A2

How is Trump trotting Zelensky out like a leashed dog evidence that Trump isn't pressuring Zelensky? If anything it looks like Zelensky is just kowtowing to avoid a personal conflict with the most powerful man in the world.

This is like saying Trump exonerated himself by saying "no quid pro quo" after he learned of the whistle-blower report.

How stupid are we, really?

But Trump doesn't give Ukraine money, the U.S itself does (via congress in this case), so not only is Trump leveraging US property for his own gain, he is compromising the national interests of America and her allies to do so. On top of that, the favor Trump wanted amounts to interference in the 2020 election, which is yet another impeachable cherry on top of it all.

For his own gain? Another presumption. For the 2020 election? Fabricated from thin air.

Rather, Trump explicitly stated the reasons why he legally held back aid. Why are these reasons not taken into account?

How is Trump trotting Zelensky out like a leashed dog evidence that Trump isn't pressuring Zelensky? If anything it looks like Zelensky is just kowtowing to avoid a personal conflict with the most powerful man in the world.

This is like saying Trump exonerated himself by saying "no quid pro quo" after he learned of the whistle-blower report.

How stupid are we, really?

He didn’t trot out Zelensky. I’m pretty sure They’ve only met once. If your evidence of Trump pressuring Zelensky is Trump tweeting that Zelensky said no pressure, you might need something more substantial.

Trump didn't get to do what he wanted regarding Biden, so that's the happy outcome.

Why are these reasons not taken into account? — NOS4A2

Corruption huh? And not specifically Burisma investigations targeting Hunter Biden?

Not specifically public announcements of investigations?

We don't take Trump's denial of wrongdoing into account because, obviously, he would deny wrong-doing. Do you think Trump is honestly the most trustworthy source to refute the allegations of Trump's corruption and subsequent dishonesty?

I feel like accepting your argument would amount to sticking my head completely inside of my own ass-hole.

Nixon clearly stated he wasn't a crook.

Since there's evidence of wrong-doing (the WH report, the transcript (do us a favor though...), subsequent testimony corroborating Trump's intent, etc...) we're going to need more than trumps denial of guilt to find reliable truth. If anything, this just speaks to how important it is to continue the inquiry and begin a trial which can really get to the bottom of it.

Meanwhile, Trump obstructs the process daily, calling it a hoax witch hunt and forbidding WH staff from answering legally issued subpoenas.

But he has nothing to hide right? I mean, he stated as much. Why don't we just blindly accept every word that Trump says?

Trump obstructs the process daily, calling it a hoax witch hunt and forbidding WH staff from answering legally issued subpoenas. — VagabondSpectre

Undeniable open and public attempts to discredit and derail. He's done everything he thinks is rightfully in his power to put an end to all investigation of anything having to do with him. If that doesn't count as impeding the investigation, of impeding congress from carrying out the responsibilities clearly laid out in the constitution, and/or of obstructing justice... nothing else possibly will.

Rather, Trump explicitly stated the reasons why he legally held back aid. — NOS4A2

It wasn't legal though. The State Department knew that which is why they started releasing it.

And in tertiary news, Devin Nunes filed a half billion dollar lawsuit against CNN, seeking punitive damages for fake news/defamation. Specifically, Devin was accused via CNN of playing a role in the Ukraine scandal, which if true, would cut one of the most corrupt silhouettes in recent American memory (given his role as ranking douche-bag in the house intelligence committee).

Devin is probably aware that one of the many defenses in defamation suits is essentially an appeal to truth. CNN lawyers are currently earning their retainers in a mad scramble to find evidence that establishes the truth of the claims CNN originally published. If old-Nune was actually involved, this could backfire spectacularly.

That said, apparently he went out of state to file it where there are no 'anti-SLAPP' measures... Could be that he knows he is innocent and can prove it, or that he wants to use litigation as a way to silence/censor CNN on the subject while the lawsuit unfolds, possibly over the course of several years...

But damn, what an opera (albeit slow and uncomfortable)...

Trudeau, Macron and Johnson caught on camera making fun of Trump

US congressman Brendan Boyle said of the video: “It’s not the least bit surprising. I’ve personally met with several high-ranking government officials from other countries who laugh about what it’s like to meet with Donald Trump.

“They’re quite open about what a complete joke they consider Trump.”

CNN lawyers are currently earning their retainers in a mad scramble to find evidence that establishes the truth of the claims CNN originally published. — VagabondSpectre

I doubt that. This is the story in question.

The crux of it is: "A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden."

There is absolutely no legal issue here (unless they lied about the lawyer, Joseph Bondy, telling them this).

Nunes' lawsuit is going nowhere. I know he's just a cow farmer or something, but even he must know that he has nothing. It's just theatre.

Oh my!

So it's just a shitty attempt to silence and censor via frivolous litigation, which is exactly why he filed it in a state with no anti-SLAPP laws. (strategic lawsuits against public participation, for those who didn't see the John Oliver segments about them).

For anyone who does not know, anti-SLAPP laws are meant to provide a way to terminate frivolous lawsuits that merely attempt to silence 1st amendment protected speech (exactly the kind of speech CNN was engaged in) via bad faith litigation.

We're starting to surpass the already cartoon-esque levels of obvious villainy.

Did Devin think that threatening CNN with a half a billion dollar lawsuit would scare them into silence? (the article remains up after-all). Did he not realize that doing so would just accelerate the blaze?

Add cartoon-esque stupidity to the list...

It wasn't legal though. The State Department knew that which is why they started releasing it.

According to OMB lawyers, withholding aid was legal so long as it was temporary.

He was in Libya and Malta according to the suit, not Vienna as CNN reported. CNN reported that Parnas and Nunes were in contact around that time, which would be late 2018. Rather, call records (Schiff is investigating fellow house members and Trump’s personal lawyer now) show Parnas contact Nunes in April 2019. Either Parnas is lying or CNN is lying.

Personally I don’t think Nunes has a case for the reasons you mentioned.

Trudeau, Macron and Johnson caught on camera making fun of Trump

US congressman Brendan Boyle said of the video: “It’s not the least bit surprising. I’ve personally met with several high-ranking government officials from other countries who laugh about what it’s like to meet with Donald Trump.

“They’re quite open about what a complete joke they consider Trump.”

They weren’t making fun of Trump. No discernible insult or mockery was recorded. Another media plot to disrupt Trump, and thus America, on the world stage.

Well, Dems have decided to educate the public again with a testimony from law professors. Call me impressed.

Must be that you’re so habituated to ridicule that you can’t even recognize it anymore. :razz:

Must be that you’re so habituated to ridicule that you can’t even recognize it anymore. :razz:

Ha. Could be true. But the guilty party disputes the narrative and I cannot find any insulting language in the discussion, so...