Leon Troutsky

Pure Football
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Leon Troutsky

  1. Tim Morrison's opening statement... https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tim-morrison-testimony-read-the-full-text-of-white-house-officials-opening-statement-to-impeachment-committees-today/
  2. You're probably correct about the outcome regarding Trump. But this situation is a lot different than Clinton. Foremost among those differences is that Clinton had a 60%+ approval rating when impeachment started and it went up. Trump's starting with a 41% approval rating. Also, relatedly, only 30% (or maybe fewer) Americans wanted Clinton impeached and/or removed from office. Somewhere around a majority of Americans want Trump impeached and removed from office. Dems only need to switch around 5-8% more Americans to support impeachment for Trump to be in real danger. And Trump's starting out very much disliked by the public and is viewed as corrupt and possibly criminal by the public. That's the starting point.
  3. To be fair, with Clinton there was also a cigar involved.
  4. Gross abuse of power is sufficient to impeach. Meeting the legal requirements to prove a crime is not necessary for impeachment.
  5. CNN is going to get a lot of legitimate criticism for only showing Dem speeches during the House debate and cutting away from Republicans.
  6. Kind of hilarious to watch Dems standing next to the American flag and quoting the Founding Fathers while Republicans argue about petty process stuff. Dems wrapping themselves in the flag and talking patriotically...nice plot twist, writers.
  7. What’s the point here? Seems to be that Bernie would win WV, but it’s not clear.
  8. I would actually buy at 75% because I think the actual probability is somewhere around 99% that he’s impeached in the House. Those bets are undervalued right now.
  9. It’s like stray cats. Feed them once and they keep coming back. That’s why I’ve never donated to a political campaign of any kind.
  10. I mean, Obama and Michelle did a fist bump and a Fox News host called it a terrorist hand gesture.
  11. Even with a subpoena, I’m not sure he’ll show. The same lawyer is representing Kupperman, who filed a lawsuit and refused to go until he gets a court ruling. Can’t imagine Bolton won’t do the same.
  12. For Bolton, at least, it’s an invitation and not a subpoena. Given his lawyer and Kupperman’s lawsuit, I’m skeptical that he’ll show. Edit: I actually think Tim Morrison’s testimony tomorrow is going to be bigger than those two.
  13. I think James McCloughan is okay with it. He knows that politics is a dog eat dog world. I’ll show myself out.
  14. JFC, what are these people doing??? The decorated Army officer who testified to House investigators on Tuesday told lawmakers that a close associate of Republican Rep. Devin Nunes “misrepresented” himself to President Donald Trump in an effort to involve himself further in Ukraine policy, according to two people familiar with his closed-door deposition. ... But he was instructed “at the last second” not to attend the debriefing, Vindman told lawmakers, because Trump’s advisers worried it might confuse the president: Trump believed at the time that Kashyap Patel, a longtime Nunes staffer who joined the White House in February and had no discernible Ukraine experience or expertise, was actually the NSC’s top Ukraine expert instead of Vindman. ... POLITICO previously reported that Hill testified that Trump thought Patel was in charge of Ukraine policy for the NSC, but Vindman’s exclusion from a key Ukraine meeting because of concerns over a potential conflict with Trump has not been disclosed before.
  15. So a few random thoughts before I get back to work. I still think that the politics of impeachment — especially Trump’s obstruction and stonewalling — could flip when it gets to the Senate. All of his excuses about stonewalling disappear when it moves to the GOP controlled Senate. If he continues to stonewall, he just builds the case for an obstruction article. I think that Dems should add four counts of “abuse of power” from the Mueller report. The two times that Trump ordered McGahn to fire Mueller directly and the two times he told Lewandowski to order Mueller to restrict the investigation to exclude Trump and his campaign. Those are very simple to explain — don’t have to get into technical legal terms about obstruction of justice — and it’s information that a LOT of Americans don’t know about. It also builds the case for gross abuse of power related to Ukraine. It shows that Ukraine isn’t a single isolated incident but rather a years-long pattern of Trump abusing his office. It’s also something that the GOP will have a hard time defending. Finally, I’m VERY curious about the process in the Senate. I know that Chief Justice of SCOTUS presides. But how are subpoenas and witnesses handled? In other words, if House investigators (who present articles of impeachment in the Senate) call McGahn and the WH refuses to obey the subpoena, does the Chief Justice rule on that in the Senate? Aside from the optics of it, IOW, I’m wondering if the fact that the Chief Justice presides might make it harder for the WH to stonewall and drag everything to the courts, legally speaking. I don’t know the answer to that, but it’s something that I think Dems should be thinking about.
  16. Fine. Let the ethics committee also investigate this dipstick and others for taking cellphones into a secure classified area. What’s good for the goose-steppers is good for the gander.
  17. Yes, some people need to be cancelled. I think we just disagree sometimes on which specific individuals need it.
  18. Thanks. You said it perfectly.
  19. Calling out people is fine. The problem is what it’s become. When a decent person makes a nuanced point, people rush in to “dunk” on them. ESPECIALLY when there are far, far more important and immediate things to be concerned about. John McCain makes a valid point about Trump’s dangerous rhetoric. Left twitter — “LOL he voted for Iraq...FLUSH!” Every day we get evidence that Trump is engaging in dangerous and corrupt exchange of foreign aid to help his political campaign. Left twitter — “ZOMG, WaPo ran this conservative columnist...FLUSH...they suck!!” That’s not helpful and, as Obama said, it’s mostly designed to make people feel morally superior and signal how pure they are. It’s stupid and unhelpful and some of it borders on outright dangerous for democracy.
  20. Actually, in a previous post (or maybe one right after) I pointed out the empirical evidence about political participation among younger generations. That anecdote is a good example of what the empirical evidence shows. And it highlights the problem with people who think protests and internet fights are going to be more effective than voting. Yes, ideological purism is indeed a problem for both parties. You deride it as “incremental change” but don’t seem to realize that the kind of far left policies promoted by Sanders and Warren are going to be unpopular with the public. People who ignore the political reality in order to push their purist, idealistic vision of the world end up electing the other side and getting far worse policies. How do we resolve this? I’d argue to leave it up to the general public, which is not going to support extreme policies from either side. So work with the public we have, not the public we want or, worse, the public we believe exists because we are delusional and stuck in twitter echo chambers.
  21. I halfway expect someone to post “ok boomer” in the next few pages.
  22. Obama didn’t “cancel” the left. That’s the main difference. He criticized people who were so purist that they would undermine a better health care policy because it wasn’t their perfect idealistic goal. But there’s no better example of Obama’s point than the response you posted. Obama makes a point about how internet posts are not activism and people should do more to be involved. The response was LULZ he droned people, hahahaha. Just perfect example of the problem he highlighted.
  23. I mean, the guy who posted a flat out lie from a Twitter a**hole to “dunk” on CNN complaining about Obama “canceling” the left. That’s some good stuff to start the day.
  24. And yet you criticized Obama for “canceling” the left.
  25. Right. I know a guy who in the weeks before 2016 was saying things like, “I’m so over politics” and “I’m done with politics”. He stayed home on election day. Two days later, he was wearing a pink hat marching and yelling “this is what democracy looks like”. He spent way more time driving to the protest and marching than he would have spent going to the polls. He really made a difference, didn’t he?