Despite Donald Trump’s efforts to go around them and then hold them back from revealing the truth?
Despite the two years of virtually excluding Democrats from the decision making of the American government…
The long term people in the State, Defense , NSC and other Departments who have been the ones who work in the trenches, to actually carry out the actions of the American government are getting back at a guy who has expressed detain at them and their jobs…..
Donald Trump, the guy who is ALL ABOUT HIMSELF has tried to get his agenda advanced since day one…
If you work for HIM, NOT the American government ?
You keep your job…
Others are sent packing….
But there are so MANY others who are around that get to hear and see thin gs…
A naive Trump has found that these people ARE willing to tell about the underhandedness going on all around them by a boss who has refused to abide by the norm’s, rules or even the law…
These days they are sitting down and telling what they have heard and seen…
Donald Trump and his lawmaker party people have NOT been able to silence them….
Or?
Hold them back…..
In recent days, current and former foreign service officers have defied Trump administration orders and trudged to Capitol Hill to testify before House committees conducting an impeachment investigation against the president. Colleagues inside the State Department and their allies in the broader foreign policy community are quietly hailing them as heroes, with special praise for those testifying despite still being on the government payroll.
In their testimonies, the diplomats have described being sidelined on Ukraine policy as Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and political appointees — apparently at the president’s direction — pursued a “shadow” foreign policy that included withholding some $400 million in military aid to Kyiv. Their boss, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has attacked the House process as “ troubling” and defended the legitimacy of Giuliani’s efforts.
Overall, the diplomats’ testimonies have bolstered allegations that Trump tried to improperly pressure Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, a political rival. But some also used the platform to air long-held grievances about Trump and his aides’ treatment of the State Department’s career staffers, several of whom were demoted or sidelined after attacks by the conservative media….
image…NBCNews
New Open Thread is HERE.…
Question for the Democrats here-
The people testifying at the proceedings who are willing to express concern about Trump actions, etc.
What do you consider them? Democrats? DeepState? NeverTrumpers? Principled Republicans?
I know what Trump apologists say about them but what about you people?
Government employee’s doing their jobs and asking questions when they see a separate rogue operation going on to do something that seems wrong and possibly illegal…
There is NO ‘Deep state’ bullshit….
These are the people who HAVE actually ran the country tries foreign and national security affairs…some for decades under different President’s…
I don’t give a heck what people might say about these people…
They?
No Trump & Co. seem to be the TRUE American patriots …
Trump’s efforts to silence them and the failure of it?
THAT IS a fight against ANOTHER effort to subvert the American system of government…
We can only hope that one day we WILL REALLY find out who this guy REALLY takes his cue’s from…
This has to be at least somewhat of an acknowledgement (and james typically is willing to say it while others here are much less willing) that there are people in the government who may very well be Republicans that are putting country before party.
I have consistently said there are “some” Republicans who oppose Trump.
What I have emphasized and will continue to is that Overwhelmingly (80-90% ) ,Republicans support Trump.
Apparently you(and James) purposefully are misusing the term “Overwhelmingly “ to mean “all.”It doesn’t as both of you well know.
So, if they are Republicans, basically they are a statistical fluke?
I don’t know what a statistical “fluke” has to do with anything.
Apparently you think you are making some “point” about Republicans in general .
Sorry I still fail to see what you are getting out.
The only thing I would say at this point is that Republicans once again will still Overwhelmingly support Trump no matter what is said at these hearings and no matter the partisan affiliation of these witnesses
but at the same time, he could be taken down or damaged by actual Republicans.
The average talk-radio fan in Ballwin, MO with their mullet and Cardinals hat does not exactly have as much influence as those who may be Republicans and have stellar records of public service.
Well we have already had that.
Some of the worst criticism of Trump has come from Republicans.
Problem is they represent a very small slice of their party and have,in effect, been disowned by the vast majority of their fellow party members.
I think I’ve offered some of the “worst criticism” of Trump here.
But yet I get accused of “always defending the Republican.” Seems to be some disconnect. I’ll try to not take it personally.
Well you accused me of “never” voting for aRepublican.
Then criticized me for voting for a Republican who said did psupported Trump. While later admitting that a Republicans support of Trump now ,wouldn’t mean you wouldn’t support them in the post Trump future.
Seems contradictory but,like you, I try not to take it personally.
I have not accused you of never voting for a Republican since you made it clear years ago that you voted for Lindsey Graham.
But yes, your rhetoric online directed toward all Republicans,, a I have commented before, does not seem to match those actions in regards to voting for openly pro-Trump conservatives in 2018.
No you said you would “never” vote for anyone who supported Trump(you were quite worked up that day)..
Then afew weeks later you said, well after Trump exited the scene ,you would be ok voting for them.
Like I say although a tad hypocritical?I try not to talked it personally like you.
I think your details are wrong.
I have said I have not voted for anyone who has openly supported Trump. That seems to be a fact. (In all high profile races in which I have voted in 2016 and 2018, the Republican nominees explicitly did not vote for Trump)
Perhaps I said the “never” in terms of a Presidential primary?
Well we can clear this up right now.
Will you in the future vote for a Republican who supported Donald Trump as President.
And ,if so, explain how that differs in any legitimate way from me supporting a Republican for the exalted position of State Supt.Of Education who said she supported Trump for President.
I have said I was NeverTrump. We all know what that means.
I have never said that I will never not vote for anyone who supported Trump.
If somehow I have a choice in 2020 between Elizabeth Warren and Mike Pence, I would vote for Pence, albeit with zero enthusiasm.
This is in no way inconsistent with what I have said in the past.
The differences between that and things you have said are substantial.
You have, at least in my view, painted *all* Republicans with a broad brush. I have said that many good people voted for Trump, just as many good people voted for Hillary and that ultimately, America will have to move forward from that wretched election.
Also, your votes in relatively minor offices are different than that of the Presidency. For one thing, you already knew that those Republicans were going to win, with or without your vote.
Had I been a citizen of South Carolina last year, I probably would not have voted for any of the statewide nominees. I might have deliberately left those offices blank or wrote in some other names.
Oh I see…
You are allowed to vote for other Republicans who supported Trump even one who served as his VP.
But let someone else vote for someone for a minor office who supported Trump?Then the person doing so is open to criticism.
What a Joke!
Like I say I don’t take it personally.Haha.
Enough foolishness for one afternoon.
What I am saying jack is that you should just be consistent about it.
You voted for Republicans for specific offices because you thought they were best equipped to serve. Fine. I don’t claim you did not do the right thing.
But if someone *else* then votes for a Republican for office for the same reasons, you cannot attack them for it. Their motivations should be considered every bit as benign as yours.
Double standards are wrong.
I’ve also made it very clear that positioning on Trump is very important to me in terms of Republican primaries, both at the present time, and will be in the future.
Time will tell what the “official line” on Trump will be in the GOP in the years ahead.
Americans
Nothing else though?
Typically, you judge people’s views/motives from a perspective of their political outlook.
I am sure you consider me an American as well, but you would have to put an asterisk next to it.
I’m not sure I understand your question.
How can any of us know their political affiliations if any.
I know that many of these State Department careerists typically avoid partisan politics as they serve under Presidents Of different parties.
Accordingly what would we have to base any opinion as to their partisan leanings?
And really what does it matter?If they are Democrats, Republicans will say “aha!”It they are Republicans they will label them either RINOs or neverTrumpers or Hell, maybe their masters favorite line,”human scum.”
Isn’t Ambassador Taylor a political appointee? He served first under Republican Presidents. He is most likely or at least possibly a Republican I would think.
The Trump acolytes are quick to label them (and others, such as Col. Vindman) as “partisan Democrats” or “NeverTrumpers.” I was just wondering if you feel a need to put any label on them.
What if they were strict Republican voters? What if they even voted for Trump? Can they still be trusted?
Once again, I don’t understand what you are getting at?
Nor do I understand what difference it makes?
Just an acknowledgement that a Republican can be patriotic and honorable and put country before party, etc, if they are indeed Republican.
Of course, my motives will always be suspect here and I will be accused of “always defending the Republican” or something ridiculous like that.
Yeah I acknowledge that.
But I don’t know what any of this has to do with that point.
As we have no idea as to the partisan affiliation of the witnesses.
Ah, defending the people who defend Donald Trump, especially “Vice President ass licker,”. the man who competes with Ms. Lindsay for the most cheek time.
First, little Mikey, who must now be afraid he will be replaced by a real woman on the ticket, just endorsed Trump Administration rules that deny adoption rights to gay couples. That must have given him a chubby. He’s as self loathing as Aaron Schrock and not even half as cute.
And, of course, Mikey does this based on his love of God and mother too.
Second, this appears to be an extension of yesterday’s conversation where Corey came out as a Trumper, supporting all those Republicans who are so artfully defending the man in the White House that he professes to hate. The logic is so twisted after three years of waiting for his party to do the right thing that his head must hurt.
I love the reference to the Log Cabin folks. Yes the board of that organization endorsed Trump/Pence, and the endorsement was met by mass resignations. Poor Vince Cable has problems with a quorum these days. There are always self loathers out there, there were even Jews who supported Hitler, and this group is no exception.
Yesterday showed us just how craven the Republicans can be in their defense of someone who clearly puts his personal agenda ahead of the Nation’s well-being.
The attack on loyal American public servants will continue by the likes of Gym Jordan and Devin “I’m suing a cow” Nunes, and Corey’s Whataboutism will continue.
In the immortal words of John Sununu, “I wish you all could learn to be real Americans.”
And here we see the poster child for fakery, as usual.
You heard it here first, Mike Pence isn’t an anti-gay bigot!!
Except he is and he’s one all wrapped up in a bible.
The man both advocated for and signed legislation that discriminated against gays in Indiana and did so on the basis of religious freedom.
As previously noted, just this week he praised another Trump rule that makes it nearly impossible for gay couples to adopt children. Again on religious grounds.
The Republican Party has been given over to a group of religious bigots who hide behind Christ to discriminate. And Pence is their spokesman.
I expect him to double down on all this hate given he has Nikki nipping at his heals.
Since Pence was carrying water for Trump in Ukraine do we think Trump will throw him under the bus?
The religious freedom debate is a big part of the reason why Democrats are so incredibly unpopular in much of the country and why so many people have been willing to overlook everything they should not be willing to overlook in regards to DJT just to prevent the Democrats from winning
If Democrats cannot figure this out and want to continue to target people for their personal religious beliefs, it will be to their continued detriment.
If there is a specific adoption proposal to criticize, by all means, do so. I believe gays and lesbians often make great adoptive parents.
But Trump is the President. Not Pence. Pence will support Trump on 100 % of matters like this just like Biden supported Obama. It’s basically a requirement for the job of VP, whether it should be or not.
You do realize you just used “religious freedom” to justify your party’s anti-gay bigotry. Amazing.
I need to go, I have real work to do.
Have a good day Corey, and please try to get some real work done.
Yes, I do not believe people should be forced to bake cakes. Let them be stubborn and lose out on the money if their religious beliefs mean that much to them.
There are plenty of places that will bake a cake.
Try to stay out of trouble Keith.
And if the same bakery was to deny a hetero couple a wedding cake because the bride or groom was divorced for “religious reasons”?
Oh wait that never happens. “Religious freedom” just means–no gays!
They should have the right to do that too.
I am not near a tv so I am unable to watch the hearings.
I am sure some of you are watching and can also specifically remember watching in 1974 and 1998 as well.
I wasn’t alive for the first one but definitely remember watching the Judiciary Committee hearings way back in 1998.
Also, I think the Committee Democrats should have hired George Conway to be their Counsel.
While I am unable to watch for myself, the online reactions to the ongoing proceedings are of course predictable.
Democrats feel their side is doing great and all of this is adding up to bad news for Trump.
On the other hand, Republicans are saying that Republicans are easily dominating the witnesses and this is all blowing up in the Democrats’ face and “impeachment just died.” (Something they say at least 10 times a day every day.)
Most likely, the truth is somewhat in the middle, as is usually the case as to who is “winning” but as someone who wants Trump out of office, I hope the Democrats are closer to correct.
Will since Trump is never going to be convicted,what difference does it make?
There will be an election in less than one year, for one thing. (I mean if Trump is convicted, tossed from office, yet wins a new term, all of this is technically moot too, right?)
The annals of history perhaps being another reason.
Yes and it has been ,and remains ,my conviction that Trump will be removed from office only by losing an election ,not by impeachment.
Or he quits because he is afraid to lose.
I extremely doubt this will become a reality but it would be a very interesting question what happens if he is removed.
Does he continue to seek reelection? If he wins, he would have to be allowed to start a new term. I imagine all sorts of legal wrangling would occur. Congress would have to wait for something new to happen to impeach him again.
Using your theory that Trump is really not that popular among Republicans but they are just stuck with him, then why would they renominate him if he were to quit.
Well, if he quits, they won’t renominate him.
I am going off the very very unlikely possibility that he is removed from office via conviction while still having been formally or effectively nominated for another term.
There is not a law that would forbid him from running again.
Actually if he were convicted and removed he could be prohibited from being re-elected.
Is that in the Constitution? Perhaps I am not aware.
Yes as part of the punishment the Senate can not only remove the officer from office but also prohibit them from holding office again.
They don’t have to but they can.
That’s interesting. I guess I’d have to look into the wording.
I know that in Illinois when Blagojevich was convicted and removed from office, that he was not allowed to ever seek state office again.
Go ahead, it should take you about pt a minute, maybe two.
I’ve been spending way too much time reading Ambassador Taylor’s 20 page opening statement….
It’s pretty interesting stuff, but did he actually read this whole thing at once today?
One of them is wearing a bow-tie though and I am not sure how that comes across for many Americans.
I think a bow tie is probably considered cooler now than it was 30 yrs ago when Paul Simon ran for President. The Senator not the singer.
One elected to Congress, Jonah Ryan began wearing bow ties….
I vaguely remember seeing the Iran-Contra hearings on television, but had no idea what they were about.
At that age, I might have theorized that it was something to do with the Iron Sheikh and a Nintendo game… (but I think the Nintendo game was still a couple years or so away)
To CG’s speculation about Amb. Taylor’s partisan identification, I think that as a career Foreign Service official (rather than as a political appointee like Gordon Sondland or Ray Flynn), he served under, and was appointed U.S. Ambassador to, various countries, by Presidents of both parties.
Remember James Comey’s comment (about the FBI) that never in 24 years had he found cause to inquire about the partisan affiliation of any colleague.
I have no way of knowing for sure what Taylor considers himself. His statement identifies him as “non partisan” but he also points out he was first appointed by Reagan, and then was appointed specifically as Ambassador to Ukraine by both GWB and Trump. He also cited a “former Republican high ranking official” who he said he considered his “mentor.”
A vote for Pence would be a vote for a Trumpist candidate.
No doubt about that.
I wouldn’t want him to be the nominee, but he’s not Donald Trump and it would be a vote against radical and dangerous policy proposals from the other side.
I would continue to miss being enthusiastic or proud about a candidate though. Perhaps those days are gone forever. Price of seeing the Cubs win a World Series…
I think if circumstances somehow make Mike Pence the GOP nominee (Trump drops out, is removed–very unlikely) he will run a very pro Trump campaign. It would be his only option to keep a likely unruly base together.
I wouldn’t necessarily see that. If Trump is removed, it means he is unpopular and Pence has to recalibrate. Let’s say something “natural” happens and Pence becomes President. He’s not going to denounce Trump but he has leeway to be his own person with his “own style”, etc. The people who are scared of Democrats have nowhere else to go.
Also?
The very act of Trump NOT being President would chop some of Pence’s thunder…
Let’s face it…
Trump IS. circus the media LOVES…
Mike Pence simply is NOT in the same league…
A Biden/Pence debate?
Hi, hum😌
Former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman (R) is set to formally announce Thursday he’s running for governor next year, UtahPolicy.com reports…..
Politicalwire…
BUT?
Mike Pence IS NOT Trump….
He maybe more of a conservative …
But he wouldn’t cast as long a shadow and one would think that as a former governor and politician?
He’d be somewhat reasonable?
Pence somewhat reasonable?
Ask the LGBT community.
Morning….
Pence IS a politican….
Trump was/is not….
That said?
Yes…He’s would NOT be LGBT friendly…
But is Trump?
Is there something specific to go along with that? We all know he is religious but has he demonstrated anything in office in regards to those issues that is considered out of the mainstream? Did he pull a Kim Davis? Is he going around crusading on this issue? Whatever one thinks of his subservience to DJT, it seems pretty off-base to attack him specifically for LGBT matters, unless it’s purely about his religious beliefs… which are shared by many.
Do you know a single gay or lesbian who considers Pence an ally who is looking out for their equal rights?
The Log Cabin Republicans endorsed the ticket.
What has Pence done or advocated as a public servant that is out of bounds?
How are his perceived religious and personal beliefs any worse than those that Rep. Clyburn says many Democrats in South Carolina hold?
The only thing that seems fair to signal out is the proposed blanket ban on transgender people in the military. I oppose that too.
But that’s Trump as the President who is proposing that. Pence is merely the #2.
Pence simply owns Trump’s positions on LGBT matters, just like anything else, and yes there are many gays and lesbians who will vote for that ticket, not caring about Pence’s personal or religious views, because they believe in what Trump/Pence are running on in regards to everything else that gets argued about.
It should be understood by this point that I am not a Pence fan for many reasons, but if he were President, instead of Trump., if he were to be considered an enemy by LGBT activists because of his perceived personal or religious beliefs, it would be because there is far less to complain about or protest as compared to the daily clown show Trump provides across the spectrum.
Since I didn’t know the answer, although I stronly suspected one, I entered “Mike Pence Governor Indiana gay LGBT LGBTQ” on Bing and saw but haven’t read a long list of items saying how unfriendly to gays was Mike Pence as Gov. of Ind.
For a disinterested (although perhaps not unbiased) list of Pence’s positions and actions, see:
https://time.com/4406337/mike-pence-gay-rights-lgbt-religious-freedom/
According to the items listed, Gov. Pence followed the harder line of Evangelical (or fundamentalist) Protestants and Traditionalist Roman Catholics, although it’s quite possible that he (as an apparently devout Christian) might be personally generous to gays. He seems to have followed the homophobic agenda rather closely, wanting, for example, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and a Constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage, while opposing laws against employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
For some more openly aligned sources, see for example:
https://www.advocate.com/election/2016/7/15/donald-trump-clearly-didnt-ask-gays-about-mike-pence
and
https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2016/07/mike-pences-top-seven-homophobic-moments-many/
His public record is not any different than most Republicans and indeed what was once common place among Democrats.
When he was Governor, there was a brouhaha about some proposed anti-discrimination law and after criticism, it was widely believed that Pence caved and tried to work out a compromise. Evangelicals blasted him for that at the time. Whatever one wants to criticize him for, he has never tried to act as a “culture warrior.”
Oh Lord. Back to your Clyburn obsession. Maybe talk to actual members of the LGBT community
and find out who they have a more favorable impression of.
The Log Cabin Republicans are a joke of a group of a few wealthy gay Republicans who want their tax cuts.
And even they said after Trump was elected that Pence was “no defender of LGBT rights”. But hey, tax cut right?
As Jack saud about the Clyburn stuff–you don’t care about this. It’s just your reflexive move to defend any Republican in sense of “fairness”
In this instance you are even more in the weeds. Just let it go.
ANYBODY here think Mike Pence casts the same size shadow as Trump as a fill in President?
I care about a double standard.
Either it’s ok for Clyburn’s constituents to be given a pass for personal or religious beliefs (which I am more than willing to do) without considering them horrible people or it’s not. The same has to be said though for all religious church-going people, whether they are black or white, Democrat or Republican.
Sure, most gay voters do not like the Trump Administration because most gay voters tend to be liberal. But it may not be as monolithic as you think. It’s anecdotal, but over at HHR, there are a handful of “regulars” who say they are gay and either love everything about Trump or plan to support him because the fear the left on economic matters.
There is plenty to criticize Pence on, but there is nothing in his public record or personal life that makes it fair to call him an anti-gay bigot.
Ok…
But can anybody deal with Pence ABSENT the gay issue?
Pence = Trump does NOT seem right for me….
Frankly this issue is NOT going to be the main political issue for Pence…
I have to admit though that Scott’s theory does perpetuate something that Trump acolytes often say, and is a big part of the reason why they oppose the concept of anyone but Trump leading the Republican Party.
They believe that Donald Trump is actually really popular in the gay community (and increasingly so in the black community where they expect him to get over 20 percent of the vote the next time) and that Pence nor any other traditional conservative would never have the chance to duplicate that.
Of course, I disagree with the overall concept. For one thing, Trump a long time ago lost the votes of many traditional Republican voters in places like the suburbs because they were so turned off by him.
As for those, who vote for Trump simply as a means of defense against the left, I think that means they would vote for literally any Republican for the same reason.
There is no evidence to suggest that people are voting for Trump because they consider him especially “woke” on gay issues or race issues.
Chris Wallace of Fox News- todays testimony “very damaging” to Trump.
Our office has visitors from Hawai’i.
They picked the wrong week to come to Chicago. This week has seen below zero windchill and about five inches of snow…. in mid November.
Crazy shit for today….
WKRC: “The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the ‘Student Religious Liberties Act.’ Under the law, students can’t be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.”
“Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.”
Politicalwire…
RCP….
Louisiana Governor Run-Off Election – Rispone vs. Bel Edwards JMC Analytics Edwards 45, Rispone 46 Rispone +1
Morning All…
Roger Stone is a convicted felon. Guilty on all counts. (I hope his cellmate is cool with Nixon.)
While Ron G. has clearly broken with Stone per what he has written about him on Twitter, he was at one point a major source of “information” to Politics1.com, cited anonymously. (Though Stone would be quoted by name in other publications saying the exact same words.) I am pretty sure he would comment from time to time there as well.
Morning….
RCP averages have Biden, Sanders, Warren, Buttigieg and Harris ALL being Trump in a general election vote NOW in that order….