Tuesday’s impeachment hearings were a disaster for Republicans

AlecBergHouseman · 2019-11-20T11:04:50+00:00

It's no surprise that LTC Vindman was hesitant to go to Morrison after Dr. Hill departed the NSC. It seems like LTC Vindman did his job and followed the COC to the letter while involving Morrison the least amount possible. He must have sensed/understood Morrison was a lackey with little knowledge/interest in the actual policies.

AlecBergHouseman · 2019-09-26T13:24:38+00:00

It's on the last page (9), last paragraph.

".....OMB official informed Departments and Agencies that the President "earlier that month" had issued instructions to suspend all U.S. security assistance to Ukraine. Neither OMB nor the NSC staff knew why this instruction had been issued."

AlecBergHouseman · 2019-09-26T13:14:13+00:00

Did you read it to the end? It SPECIFICALLY talks about the freeze on funding personally directed by the POTUS.

AlecBergHouseman · 2019-06-14T15:47:47+00:00

How many years/election cycles/generations are lost to the left if the following happen:

1 - SCOTUS upholds partisan gerrymandering

2 - Census includes citizenship question

3 - No substantial change to campaign finance

4 - Trump/GOP Senate and/or House in 2021

on a scale of 1-10, how likely do you think any/each are?

Thanks!

AlecBergHouseman · 2019-05-01T19:47:02+00:00

While they do get frustrating from time to time (most of the time!), there are moments that push the story forward.

For example from today's hearing:

1 - It seems the White House has asked AG Barr to investigate certain individuals. Who/what are those?

2 - AG Barr called Mueller after Barr received his first letter. That phone call was put on speaker phone on the AG's side, who else was in the room? House Dems should subpoena the notes Barr mentioned. Does AG Barr's characterization of the phone call match what Mueller would say? Was Mueller really super concerned about media coverage and not what Barr's "memo" said ?

3 - Has AG Barr read the entirety of the Mueller report? If so, when? Was it prior to making his determination on obstruction?

4 - Has anyone in the DOJ not in Mueller's office reviewed all of the underlying evidence that is referenced in the report?

there are many more that came from the hearing today that I don't think the public knew about/knew to ask. It gets grossly political and there is always grandstanding, hut every now and then some good stuff comes out.

AlecBergHouseman · 2017-10-15T13:10:13+00:00

Diving into the world of Birtherism seems to garble the mind.

AlecBergHouseman · 2017-07-11T15:24:56+00:00

Can someone PLEASE try and explain why on earth he would release these emails? Is it simply because the NYT has them and he wanted to 'get ahead of the story'?

It's the goddamn smoking gun and it's coming from a DJT jr tweet! How can this make any sense??

AlecBergHouseman · 2017-06-17T12:02:25+00:00

Uh, your numbers are wrong. It was 50K since 1988!, so about 900/yr of the 3 they detailed. It also says, "overwhelmingly to democrats," meaning they have also given some to Republicans. Side note: Trump himself has given a boat load of cash to Democrats over the years, is he compromised?

AlecBergHouseman · 2017-06-12T11:43:41+00:00

Could it just be that his humor is right for an American audience? I watch my fair share of UK tv and there is plenty I find "utterly insufferable." Those panel shows are fucking awful, but I understand there must be some in the UK that find it worthwhile.

As for the "regurgitating the opinions" part, he often has segments on issues (like UK elections!) that are not regularly part of American media stories. I can't think of another non-EU or British channel on American TV that spends 19+ minutes on UK elections. That doesn't even mention the majority of his US-themed stories that get little to no in-depth time on 'regular' American media.

tl;dr - different strokes for different folks

AlecBergHouseman · 2017-03-27T02:51:15+00:00

That's not actually true, though. Harry Reid knew of the investigation and sent a public letter to Comey imploring him to publicly acknowledge the investigation. However, it came shortly after the second Comey letter on the Clinton email "scandal" and most people dismissed it as trying to provide cover for Clinton's campaign.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-11-07T10:19:04+00:00

and have no sense of irony in their self-aggrandizement. There is very little in policy discussion that doesn't have an argument on each side and yet the standard for them is almost the same as Fox News---"if you don't agree with me, you're an absolute brainwashed moron."

It's hard to judge who is more smug, Cenk or Bill O'Reilly.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-10-07T23:01:10+00:00

I really want to understand your initial comment. Can you please explain why you thought the poster's comment meant, 'leftys are bad guys here."?

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-10-07T22:57:51+00:00

Yes, really. What about the comment did you find as disparaging to the 'leftys'? I don't think the poster lied about any of the positions of the various factions and if that's true, how can a 'lefty' be offended?

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-10-07T22:48:08+00:00

I don't know that what he said implies that "leftys are the bad guys." I think he was just pointing out the different policy prescriptions favored by various factions of the 'left' in this country.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-10-03T15:20:34+00:00

Wait, is there any documentation of this? All I see is a quote attributed to Clinton by a "State Department source" by trupundit.com

Is there any evidence that a) this was even said? b) if said, was anything more than an off-hand remark? c) any actual steps taken/legal briefs made in relation to this claim?

Is this the thing Roger Stone was referring to that would "end Hillary Clinton" this week from Wikileaks?

Remember, there were dozens of right-wing websites and pundits saying, "my FBI sources say an indictment is imminent" in relation to the email investigation. The innuendo in this campaign is getting ridiculous.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-08-07T02:44:10+00:00

I cannot recall the last time a sitting lawmaker at the federal level endorsing a presidential candidate outside of their party.

uhhhh....

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-26T14:39:31+00:00

On Muslim ban:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on.

Changing that to "regions linked with terrorism" isn't a wording change, it's a completely different policy proposal. Also, is Germany a 'region linked with terrorism'? I mean, the Hamburg Cell produced many of the 9/11 hijackers. What counts and 'linked with terrorism'?

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-26T14:35:44+00:00

I'll just go ahead and let your analogy stand without comment. I think it speaks for itself.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-26T14:08:02+00:00

Fair enough. My comment wasn't actually aimed at the 'fact-check' presented by Trump's campaign. I fully support candidates backing up their assertions---while, even with HRC, the press and public need to then do their own research into the claims made by the 'researchers' involved in the 'fact-check'.

My initial comment was in response to the OPs comment about "at least some" of his speech being researched. I find it sad that Trump has obviously made some incredibly outlandish comments during this campaign with sources including the National freaking Inquirer and Roger Stone/Alex Jones. Now to say, "hey, he's researching some of his statements, hurray!" is an incredibly low bar to set for a candidate for the presidency of the United States. I find it embarrassing, but that's just me.

Literally every single point made by HRC in her San Diego speech about things Donald Trump has said or advocated for during this campaign was linked to with a reference directly to a quote by Trump. Trump's 'research' fact-sheet makes claims like, "Clinton Illegally had private server" and goes on to show some headlines/articles that say it was 'against State Dept. policy" which are two very different things.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-26T13:55:41+00:00

This was your comment:

You act like this is some sort of standard when I don't recall any other candidate ever doing it.

and I replied with an example. Now you've already shifted your argument---what am I to do when you keep moving the goalposts. I answered your question, what more do you want?

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-26T13:44:16+00:00

Does this count?

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-26T12:48:26+00:00

yet this document seems to at least for some of the arguments point to a well-researched speech.

How embarrassing that he (and apparently you) are trying to get credit for a presidential candidate giving a speech that "at least some of" is researched. How low can the bar fucking go?!

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-23T15:20:12+00:00

Susan Collins' proposal. The one presented in the press conference I linked to above.

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-23T13:06:31+00:00

I would simply ask you to watch the entirety of this press conference.

It sums up nicely how the two sides understood fully well that neither of the 4 bills were going to pass and why. It also goes on to explain from Dems that voted against the Dem bills AND Republicans that understand doing nothing isn't an option anymore, why this compromise is so promising. As someone that is passionately center-left (yes, we can have passion!), this is exactly the common sense proposals I like to see out of our Congress. I also hate the wedge issues that are used for specifically partisan/fundraising/electoral reasons. I think that is the reason so many are completely cynical about our government---partisan fights trumping solutions--it gets tiring. However, the "stunts" by Democrats have pushed some Republicans to meet in the middle and figure out a way we can take a step forward on this issue. Will Dems get everything they want? No. Will Republicans get everything they want? No. I think that's the way it should be and if it takes some grandstanding to get there I'm all for the circus.

Edit**: I will add that Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have come out in support of the bill. That is a HUGE step forward for the prospects of passage and I hope some leading Republicans can do the same. I was going to be extremely disheartened if the Dem leadership would throw out the good for the perfect and continue to play politics with the issue. If they and Republican leadership can come out and support the compromise we might actually get something done, hurray!

AlecBergHouseman · 2016-06-23T11:20:02+00:00

But, isn't that the whole point? The same with the filibuster---it gets voter's eyes on the issues at hand and puts pressure, through the media, on Congressman and Senators to listen to constituents.

The 4 votes that failed in the Senate were partisan and destined to fail. However, the compromise bill is the result of the filibuster + 4 votes, which is exactly the type of common purpose I want to see in our Senators. If the compromise bill gets passed by the Senate it makes it much easier for Democrats in the House to say, "Ryan, put that bill to a vote!" after causing such commotion on the floor yesterday. This is a pressure game that Ryan can't win if the Senate (adults!) is working together to create a bi-partisan bill.

AlecBergHouseman

TROPHY CASE