Chuck McCullough In The News!

I know, I know. The world is burning, people are dying, and the monster in the Oval Office is pausing a deal to purchase much needed ventilators because of (now wait for it) cost. Oh, and he also told the Governor of NY, who's begging for 30,000 much needed ventilators, "I don't think you need that many."

But I have to keep tabs on this story.

From the P-G:

The state Superior Court on Wednesday upheld the conviction of former Allegheny County Councilman Charles McCullough, whose case has a long and tortured history.

McCullough, 65, was found guilty of five counts of theft and five counts of misapplication of entrusted funds following a non-jury trial before Allegheny County Common Pleas Judge Lester G. Nauhaus in 2015. He was accused of writing more than $40,000 in political contributions from the accounts of Shirley Jordan, an elderly widow he represented, without her permission.

McCullough was initially arrested in February 2009 and it took more than six years to get the case to trial. In November 2015, McCullough was sentenced to serve 2½ to five years in prison, but he still has not begun serving that punishment, as the sentence has been on hold pending appeal.

A few important dates:

• February 19, 2009 - McCullough arrested 
• July 31, 2015 - McCullough found guilty
• December 17, 2015 - McCullough sentenced  

Today is March 27, 2020. It means, then, that it's been:

• 11 years, 1 month and 8 days since he was arrested 
• 4 years, 7 months and 27 days since he was found guilty
• 4 years, 3 months and 10 days since he was sentenced

And so this is where we are. I would like to point out something from the article:

McCullough said he had wanted to have a jury hear his case, but that he feared repercussions from Judge Nauhaus if he went against his wishes.

So look at some of the duration since:

• Chuck's sentencing - longer than US involvement in World War II (3 years, 8 months, 26 days).
• Chuck was found guilty - longer than the whole of World War I (4 years, 3 months, 14 days)
• Chuck's arrest - longer than the entire run of Friends (9 years, 7 months, 14 days)

When his case has finally reached the end of appeals, I'm thinking that this will still be an issue for our good buddy Chuck. This is why:

Prosecutors said that and other statements McCullough made in his motion for recusal contradicted his statement under oath that no one threatened or coerced him to waive a jury in favor of a bench trial.

Here's the thing in simpler language. At the beginning of the trial McCullough said under oath that no one coerced him to accept a "judge only" trial. (Full disclosure: I was there, a few rows of courtroom chairs away.)  So by stating under oath that he feared repercussions from Judge Nauhaus, Chuck (in my non-attorney mind, at least) constructed two contradictory sworn statements. Logically, one has to be a lie.

And lying under oath is perjury.

Now, back to our regularly scheduled apocalypse.

Wendy Bell Made It Onto Talkingpointsmemo!

In this piece (reprinted from propublica) that was given this Headline:

Even After Trump Declared a National Emergency, Some Talk Radio Hosts Weren’t Convinced

In the last two weeks, several of the most-listened-to conservative hosts were telling millions of listeners that they should ignore the “hype” and that the coronavirus is no worse than the seasonal flu.

After discussions of conservative radio hosts Mark Levin and Mike Gallagher propublica wrote:

Other talk show hosts have likened the current pandemic to the H1N1 swine flu, which did not prompt school shutdowns or stay-at-home orders. For instance, a caller to Wendy Bell’s radio show on Pittsburgh’s KDKA on March 19 alleged the news media chose not to “hype” swine flu because it would have destroyed the economy during the burgeoning financial crisis. “Amen,” Bell interjected. She added, “It wasn’t just the media, though. It was a difference in president. So you have [Barack] Obama, who they fiercely defended.”

Bell continued: “Why the fervor to cover this like the plague when legitimately we lost 13,000 Americans? Where was the breathless coverage then? … Why wasn’t the market a complete disaster?” she told her listeners. Experts warn that the coronavirus is more lethal and appears to spread more easily than H1N1.

“You’ve got smart callers on this show, I’ll tell ya what,” Bell said before going to commercial break. KDKA has about 142,000 listeners, according to Nielsen.

When propublica contacted Bell for a comment, her truthiness was exposed:

Bell defended her stance in an email to ProPublica on Monday. “We’d had a total of 200 US deaths from Covid when I said that last week,” Bell wrote. “Compare the numbers. We’ve already had between 18,000 and 22,000 H1N1 deaths this flu season. And it’s been the deadliest for children (particularly ages 0 to 4) in decades.” In fact, as of March 14, there were 149 pediatric deaths from flu, the highest since 262 in 2009-10, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“Where’s the panic? The stock market crash? The breathless news coverage? The strict preventive measures? People sheltering in place? The task force? The social distancing? Answer. There hasn’t been any. Why? Connect the dots. You can’t pin seasonal flu on the president. Covid? It’s what Democrats are doing, plain and simple,” she continued.

Yes, but you can pin this nation's response on this president.

For example, this is what he was saying when he could have been mobilizing/preparing the nation for the virus:


And let's not forget that this is a pandemic he was warned about back in January/February.

And now he's itching to ease the social distancing guidelines (to "Reopen America" by Easter). This will only lead to more suffering and more death - all of which will his fault.

I don't listen to Wendy Bell. Has she changed her tune in the past two weeks?

PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

And Wendy if you're reading this and wish to comment, my email address is on the upper right - just click the word Dayvoe and you'll find my email address.

They Are Not Expendable

From Talkingpointsmemo:

For weeks, as the novel coronavirus has spread across the globe and infected hundreds of thousands of people, there have been the skeptics — those who say “social distancing,” while proven to slow the spread of COVID-19 and save lives, isn’t worth the economic cost.

President Donald Trump has leaned into that view lately, becoming its most high-profile proponent. “We’re not going to let the cure be worse than the problem,” he said at a press briefing Monday. Later, referring to social distancing, he added that there would be “probably more death from that than anything we’re talking about with respect to the virus.”

TPM then goes on to list some politicians/pundits who agree with the orange vulgarity that sacrificing a few million American citizens in order for the rest of (one hopes) us to have a healthier economy sooner is justified.

For example:

On Sunday night, Fox News host Steve Hilton said it was easy for the U.S. government’s top infectious disease expert Anthony Fauci to encourage “overreacting” to COVID-19 — because “he’ll still have a job at the end of this, whatever happens.”

“Our ruling class and their TV mouthpieces whipping up fear over this virus, they can afford an indefinite shutdown,” Hilton, a former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron, said. “Working Americans can’t, they’ll be crushed by it. You know that famous phrase, ‘The cure is worse than the disease’? That is exactly the territory we are hurtling towards.”

This is the phrase to look for:

We can't let the cure be worse than the disease.

Which is exactly what Trump ALL CAPS! tweeted a few days ago:

WE CANNOT LET THE CURE BE WORSE THAN THE PROBLEM ITSELF. AT THE END OF THE 15 DAY PERIOD, WE WILL MAKE A DECISION AS TO WHICH WAY WE WANT TO GO!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 23, 2020

He's looking to end the social distancing guidelines in order to somehow get the economy rolling again (which, he hopes, will look oh-so good for his re-election). A few million deaths?

Back to TPM:

In perhaps the harshest rendition of this argument, one that’s since been erased from the internet, the California attorney Scott A. McMillan tweeted about the “fundamental problem” of social distancing for the sake of the sick and vulnerable.

“The fundamental problem is whether we are going to tank the entire economy to save 2.5% of the population which is (1) generally expensive to maintain, and (2) not productive,” he wrote, soliciting a barrage of criticism for effectively waiving away the deaths of eight million people.

That's the question over there - whether it's worth saving eight million people if it means losing lots and lots of money.

Haven't these folks been calling themselves "pro-life" for...um...EVER?

Locally, guess who retweeted Trump's ALL CAPS! tweet?

Sean Parnell, pro-life Republican candidate looking to run against Representative Conor Lamb:

Does Candidate Sean Parnell think that doing everything we can to save as many people as we can now is actually WORSE than loosening those social distancing guidelines (and thus letting the virus spread further and faster?)

I'll let New York Governor Cuomo sum up the counter argument:

My mother is not expendable and your mother is not expendable and our brothers and sisters are not expendable and we’re not going to accept a premise that human life is disposable and we’re not going to put a dollar figure on human life.

Anything to say, Sean?

Monster Watch

At today's presser, NBC's Peter Alexander asks Trump, "What do you say to Americans who are scared right now?"

Now to a Clinton or an Obama, or hell, to W or Reagan, this would have been a softball question. It would have teed them up to be presidential and offer words of hope and calls for giving and bravery. Close your eyes, picture any leader answering this question. It isn't hard. I mean, shit! Mr. Rogers would have said to look for the helpers.

But this question wasn't asked of a human. It was asked to a MONSTER. A malignant narcissist who has not a shred of empathy or compassion. A man with skin so thin, anything short of obsequious fawning is taken as a threat to his very being.

So Trump lashes back and says, "I say that you're a terrible reporter, that's what I say...That's a very nasty question!"

He does not have the ability to mimic human behavior for any real length of time because he is a sociopath. A monster. He will kill us all.

There May Be Trouble Ahead

There may be trouble ahead.
But while there's music and moonlight
And love and romance,
Let's face the music and dance.

Before the fiddlers have fled,
Before they ask us to pay the bill,
And while we still have the chance,
Let's face the music and dance.

Soon, we'll be without the moon.
Humming a different tune, and then
There may be teardrops to shed
So while there's moonlight and music
And love and romance.

Let's face the music and dance.

Trump's Coronavirus Speech And What He Got Wrong (UPDATE)

First the speech:


And now a survey on what he got wrong.

NYTimes:

There were also surprising — and significant — inaccuracies in the speech, which administration officials and the president had to clarify almost immediately afterward. Mr. Trump said in his address he would suspend “all travel from Europe to the United States,” but the ban in fact applies to foreign citizens. And while he said the measure would “apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo” across the ocean, the order in fact affects only people.

From the speech:

At the very start of the outbreak, we instituted sweeping travel restrictions on China and put in place the first federally mandated quarantine in over 50 years.

And from the Times:

But officials have since conceded that those efforts at containment have not prevented the virus from spreading within communities around the United States.

From ABCNews (about that travel ban):

First, the restriction does not apply to legal permanent residents of the U.S. or their families when they are returning from Europe. It also does not apply to U.S. citizens coming back from Europe, as Trump acknowledged.

As well, it apparently does not apply to Ireland, Romania, Croatia, Ukraine and several other European states. The proclamation released by the White House says the travel ban will affect the 26 European states in what's known as the Schengen Area. That's most of Europe, but not “all.”

Here's the proclamation mentioned above. It defines the Schengen Area as:

For purposes of this proclamation, the Schengen Area comprises 26 European states: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.

And here's what the proclamation has to say about the travel ban:

Given the importance of protecting persons within the United States from the threat of this harmful communicable disease, I have determined that it is in the interests of the United States to take action to restrict and suspend the entry into the United States, as immigrants or nonimmigrants, of all aliens who were physically present within the Schengen Area during the 14-day period preceding their entry or attempted entry into the United States. The free flow of commerce between the United States and the Schengen Area countries remains an economic priority for the United States, and I remain committed to facilitating trade between our nations.

Remember, Trump said:

To keep new cases from entering our shores, we will be suspending all travel from Europe to the United States for the next 30 days.

And:

There will be exemptions for Americans who have undergone appropriate screenings, and these prohibitions will not only apply to the tremendous amount of trade and cargo, but various other things as we get approval.

Wrong. The restriction on people only applies to "all aliens...physically present within the Schengen Area during the 14-day period" (and so there's no need to exempt Americans) and it apparently does NOT apply to cargo.

In fact, ABC reported:

The White House quickly clarified that the restriction on movement from Europe "only applies to human beings, not goods and cargo.”

So how bad was this speech?

Rod Deher of The American Conservative:

I don’t suppose I’m opposed to the European travel restrictions, but it’s much too late for that to do measurable good. They would have made a lot more sense two weeks ago. And exempting Britain from this ban is senseless. It sounded like he’s trying to frame the virus as an external threat. But it’s already here, and it’s rapidly spreading. This seemed more rhetorical than anything else — Trump trying to reinforce his image as a nationalist looking out for American interests

And:

He said nothing about the critical-care crisis facing hospitals. I have found that this is a point that is not widely understood by the general public: that even if only a relatively small number of people are ultimately going to die from this virus, it stands to overwhelm our hospitals. This is why it is so very important for everybody to practice social distancing and the rest: to slow the rate of infection, and give our health care system the chance to cope. It is beyond comprehension why he didn’t make this clear to listeners tonight. I’ve had a number of conversations these past few days with people who aren’t following the story closely, and they are entirely unaware of this fact. The president blew an opportunity to explain that to the nation

Rick Wilson:

Hire a businessman, they said.

Drain the swamp, they said.

Take him literally, not seriously, they said.

Think of the lulz, they said.

“How bad can it be?” they said. pic.twitter.com/VrfnOTZpwp

— Rick Wilson (@TheRickWilson) March 12, 2020

Erick Erickson:

So, to recap, the President misstated what insurance companies will actually pay for; misstated that cargo would be blocked from Europe (it won't be); and left out a huge detail about the European travel ban that was decided before his speech and added relevant context. Uh-oh.

— Erick Erickson (@EWErickson) March 12, 2020

Yea, that bad.

UPDATE:

🚨The White House is currently walking back *three* false policy announcements Trump made during his nationally televised address. pic.twitter.com/W1WbWCygGI

— Corey Ciorciari (@CoreyCiorciari) March 12, 2020

It's been pointed out that the speech was something UNDER 10 minutes long.

Chris Hayes On Trump And Covid-19

From this tweet:

I’ve been trying very hard to use our platform to communicate the facts and science of where we are in this pandemic. We do not want to stoke panic, because, again the *individual* risk remains low. Wash your hand. Have some canned food.

BUT

The news from Italy tonight clarifies just how enormous the systemic risk we’re facing is. And here’s the plain truth: Our federal government has failed and we are now, because of that failure, facing an enormous impending crisis. This is Katrina-level incompetence, if not worse.

Yesterday the President came out and admitted he is pressuring scientific and health experts to take steps that are worse for public health to artificially keep the numbers low.

This is sociopathic governance.

Now we have this story that the WH overruled health officials who wanted to warn elderly and immune-compromised people not to fly. But Trump wants the economic activity because he wants to be re-elected.

This is sociopathic governance.

Official: White House didn't want to tell seniors not to flyNEW YORK (AP) — The White House overruled health officials who wanted to recommend that elderly and physically fragile Americans be advised not to fly on commercial airlines because of the new.

(The VP’s press office has denied the story but unfortunately, given the record of this WH, there is absolutely no reason to believe them.)

All the facts we have access to suggest the following: Trump is attempting to cover up the full scope of the outbreak in order to boost his chances for re-election. HE ADMITTED AS MUCH YESTERDAY ON CAMERA.

In doing so, he is quite literally threatening public health. This Is incompetence and malevolence that will quite simply get a lot of people killed. I know that sounds harsh, but we have to start saying the clear and simple truth that is now evident.

I hope other people in the media wake up to this.

Trump And The House Intelligence Committee

Recently, this hit the fan:

Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected, five people familiar with the matter said, a disclosure to Congress that angered Mr. Trump, who complained that Democrats would use it against him.

The day after the Feb. 13 briefing to lawmakers, the president berated Joseph Maguire, the outgoing acting director of national intelligence, for allowing it to take place, people familiar with the exchange said. Mr. Trump was particularly irritated that Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California and the leader of the impeachment proceedings, was at the briefing.

Also, this:

After learning of that analysis, which was provided to House lawmakers in a classified hearing, Trump grew angry at his acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, in the Oval Office, seeing Maguire and his staff as disloyal for speaking to Congress about Russia’s perceived preference. The intelligence official’s analysis and Trump’s furious response ­ruined Maguire’s chances of becoming the permanent intelligence chief, according to people familiar with the matter who, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter.

Trump was angry at Maguire for "speaking to Congress" and for "allowing [the briefing] to take place.

Too bad he doesn't have a say in the matter. This was a briefing with the House Intelligence Committee (not the whole Congress) and the law clearly states that:

The President shall ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept fully and currently informed of the intelligence activities of the United States, including any significant anticipated intelligence activity as required by this title. [Sec. 501 (a)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947]

And:

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as authority to withhold information from the congressional intelligence committees on the grounds that providing the information to the congressional intelligence committees would constitute the unauthorized disclosure of classified information or information relating to intelligence sources and methods. [Sec. 501 (2)(e) of the National Security Act of 1947]

He doesn't get to stop the Intelligence Community from briefing either congressional Intelligence Committee.

But the day is still young.

Character Test For AG Barr

A few days ago this happened:

More than 1,100 former prosecutors and Justice Department officials signed an open letter to Attorney General William P. Barr slamming him for flouting the long-standing principle that the White House (and its henchmen) should not intervene in specific criminal cases, as appeared to be the case in the Justice Department’s flip-flop on its sentencing recommendation for convicted presidential crony Roger Stone.

 From the statement we read:

All DOJ lawyers are well-versed in these rules, regulations, and constitutional commands. They stand for the proposition that political interference in the conduct of a criminal prosecution is anathema to the Department’s core mission and to its sacred obligation to ensure equal justice under the law.

And yet, President Trump and Attorney General Barr have openly and repeatedly flouted this fundamental principle, most recently in connection with the sentencing of President Trump’s close associate, Roger Stone, who was convicted of serious crimes. The Department has a long-standing practice in which political appointees set broad policies that line prosecutors apply to individual cases. That practice exists to animate the constitutional principles regarding the even-handed application of the law. Although there are times when political leadership appropriately weighs in on individual prosecutions, it is unheard of for the Department’s top leaders to overrule line prosecutors, who are following established policies, in order to give preferential treatment to a close associate of the President, as Attorney General Barr did in the Stone case. It is even more outrageous for the Attorney General to intervene as he did here — after the President publicly condemned the sentencing recommendation that line prosecutors had already filed in court.

Such behavior is a grave threat to the fair administration of justice. In this nation, we are all equal before the law. A person should not be given special treatment in a criminal prosecution because they are a close political ally of the President. Governments that use the enormous power of law enforcement to punish their enemies and reward their allies are not constitutional republics; they are autocracies.

As of this writing, more than 2,000 DOJ alumni have signed the statement.

And then, more recently, this happened:

A national association of federal judges has called an emergency meeting Tuesday to address growing concerns about the intervention of Justice Department officials and President Donald Trump in politically sensitive cases, the group’s president said Monday.

Philadelphia U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe, who heads the independent Federal Judges Association, said the group “could not wait” until its spring conference to weigh in on a deepening crisis that has enveloped the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr.

Judge Rufe is a George W Bush appointee, by the way.

Oh, and, according to the article, 1,000 federal judges called for the emergency meeting.

Then there's this from Donald Ayer (United States Attorney and Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Reagan administration and Deputy Attorney General under George H.W. Bush):

Bill Barr’s America is not a place that anyone, including Trump voters, should want to go. It is a banana republic where all are subject to the whims of a dictatorial president and his henchmen. To prevent that, we need a public uprising demanding that Bill Barr resign immediately, or failing that, be impeached.

When?

Meanwhile, Outside (Climate Change, 60 Minutes, And Australian Arson)

According to the science at NOAA:

The global land and ocean surface temperature for January 2020 was the highest in the 141-year record, with a temperature departure from average of 1.14°C (2.05°F) above the 20th century average. This value was only 0.02°C (0.04°F) higher than the now second highest January temperature departure from average set in 2016. The four warmest Januaries on record have occurred since 2016, while the 10 warmest Januaries have occurred since 2002.

And here's a chart for those who wish to see one:

See that last column on the far right? That's where we are right now.

Last night, on 60 Minutes, there was a segment on the wildfires now burning in Australia.

Which, of course, triggered the denialists on twitter with tales of Australian arsonists.

Like this one:

@60Minutes How about u mention the arsonists who STARTED THE fires in Australia!!!!! #lies #60minutes #falsenarrative

— Capt. M. J. Hight (@Maineseacaptain) February 17, 2020

Except, of course, it's the "arson is the cause" that's the false narrative here.

Factcheck.org:

The fact is, hot, dry conditions allow for bushfires to escalate, regardless of how they are started. As we explained in 2017, in a story about wildfires in the western U.S., climate change doesn’t cause these fires, but it can exacerbate the hot and dry conditions that make wildfires more likely to develop and grow.

That first link leads to this article by the Australian Academy of Science and these few sentences:

An increase in warmer and drier weather means a higher number of days of high or extreme fire risk. Indeed, we’ve already seen an increase in high and extreme risk days in Australia over the past four decades. Along with more days of higher risk, climate change will also bring an extension of the fire season.

The AP:

Q: IS CLIMATE CHANGE REALLY A FACTOR?

A: Scientists, both those who study fire and those who study climate, say there’s no doubt man-made global warming has been a big part, but not the only part, of the fires.

Last year in Australia was the hottest and driest on record, with the average annual temperature 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above the 1960 to 1990 average, according to Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology. Temperatures in Australia last month hit 121.8 F (49.9 C).

“What would have been a bad fire season was made worse by the background drying/warming trend,’’ Andrew Watkins, head of long-range forecasts at Australia’s Bureau of Meteorology, said in an email.

Mike Flannigan, a fire scientist at the University of Alberta in Canada, said Australia’s fires are “an example of climate change.”

A 2019 Australian government brief report on wildfires and climate change said, “Human-caused climate change has resulted in more dangerous weather conditions for bushfires in recent decades for many regions of Australia.”

And so on.

Senatorial Courage (Mitt Romney) - And Senatorial Cowardice (Pat Toomey)

The only senator ever to vote to remove from office an impeached president who was a member of his own party said this on the floor of the senate yesterday:

The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor.”

Yes, he did.

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival.

The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so.

The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President’s purpose was personal and political.

Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

What he did was not “perfect”— No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

And:

Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

And finally:

I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.

And then he voted to remove Donald Trump from office.

Senator Mitt Romney, Republican from Utah, voted country over party. He voted loyalty to the truth rather than loyalty to Trump. Conscience over party.

Then there's Senator Pat Toomey, Republican from Pennsylvania. To defend his decision to acquit, he released a statement that read:

Today, I joined a majority of senators in voting to acquit President Trump. The Constitution sets a very high bar for impeachment and removal of a sitting president. While some of President Trump's actions were inappropriate, they did not come close to meeting the very high bar required to justify overturning the last election, removing him from office, and kicking him off the ballot in an election that has already begun. In November, the American people will decide for themselves whether President Trump should stay in office. In our democratic system, that's the way it should be.

Toomey gets something wrong at the end. He's implying that the process of impeachment and removal is somehow outside of "our democratic system" and that's exactly wrong. As it's written into the Constitution, it's a central part of the system (as a final legislative check on an out-of-control executive), and not an aberration of it.

To Toomey what Trump did was bad, just not bad enough for removal.

In his Philadelphia Inquirer Op-Ed, published before his vote to cover-up, Toomey wrote:

House Democrats' impeachment articles allege that President Trump briefly paused aid, and withheld a White House meeting with Ukraine's president, to pressure Ukraine into investigating two publicly-reported corruption matters. The first matter was possible Ukrainian interference in our 2016 election. [Links in original.]

That second link is very interesting as it links to the White House 171-page memo released in response to The House's impeachment. In it, we find this curious justification for dismissal:

III.Article I Fails Because House Democrats Have No Evidence to Support Their Claims.

A.The Evidence Shows That the President Did Not Condition Security Assistance or a Presidential Meeting on Announcements of Any Investigations.

House Democrats have falsely charged that the President supposedly conditioned military aid or a presidential meeting on Ukraine’s announcing a specific investigation. Yet despite running an entirely ex parte, one-sided process to gather evidence, House Democrats do not have a single witness who claims, based on direct knowledge, that the President ever actually imposed such a condition.

We now know that there was a witness "who claims, based on direct knowledge, that the President" actually did impose such a condition - former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

Bolton, however, was never heard by the Senate because Senate republicans (including Pat Toomey) voted against hearing any witnesses - thus giving more cover from Trump's grievously wrong actions.

His explanation is dizzingly circular:

Even if House Democrats' presumptions about President Trump's motives are true, additional witnesses in the Senate, beyond the 17 who testified in the House, are unnecessary because the president's actions do not rise to the level of removing him from office.

Since they already knew Trump's actions didn't rise to the level of removal, hearing any witness that could show otherwise was simply unnecessary. The fix is in. The republic suffers.

Two Senators, both republicans. One acted courageously and the other one was Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey.

Thought For The Day

From Joe Conason over at The National Memo:

Americans ought to thank Alan Dershowitz for his scintillating defense of President Donald Trump. Carried away on a crescendo of bluster, the retired Harvard law professor broadcast the true meaning of the acquittal preordained by crooked Senate Republicans: This president is exempt from any legal consequences, even if he seeks foreign assistance to rig his own election.

Of course, the minute there is a president from the Democratic Party sitting in the Oval Office the GOP's tune will, no doubt, change completely.

They will, no doubt, immediately evangelize to the nation on the wisdom of the constitutionally authorized checks and balances, the constitutionally authorized limits on presidential power and the constitutionally authorized co-equal branches of government.

At that point challenging them on their actions these past few weeks will only trigger blank stares and deflections to something else - anything else - in order to avoid any discussion of their own betrayals of the same Constitution they will be claiming to defend.

The Fix Is In (As If We Didn't Already Know This)

The US Senate (formerly known as "The World's Greatest Deliberative Body") did this a few minutes ago:

The Senate voted on Friday to block the consideration of additional witnesses and documents in President Trump’s impeachment trial, as Republicans shut down a push by Democrats to bring in new evidence and cleared the way for a swift acquittal in the coming days.

Every Republican but two (Romney and Collins) voted to block.

The "new evidence" was the first-hand, eye-witness account of former NSA John Bolton.

This is not a trial that will discern the truth. This "trial" was planned from the beginning to let Trump off for his crimes against The Constitution.

Found On Twitter A Few Minutes Ago (A Message To Senator Toomey)

Senator Toomey, can you follow this argument from Rick Wilson?

Every Republican senator needs to know some key, invariable facts:

The moment they vote to deny witnesses, they seal their own political fate.

The blow won’t just come from the Democrats or from outside groups.

It will come from Trump himself.

Because the moment you deny witnesses, Trump will know his exoneration is inevitable.

And he will start bragging about it.

He will start talking about it. He will tweet about it.

And then as the evidence emerges in dribs and drabs, and as the facts you covered up become public, [you] own them. You’re on the whole story. He’ll laugh and let you all burn to the ground.

He’ll let you take the political damage, absorb all the radiation, and to lose more seats.

More importantly, like any criminal who forces someone to become an accomplice, he’ll know that you’re morally weak and mentally unable to ever resist him.

He’s an abuser, the Ike Turner of presidents, and no matter how many times you beg [he's] still going to knock you around.

Finally, a favorite trope in advertising is — rightly — the “X cast the deciding vote.”

Y’all are looking at 3 votes for witnesses, tops.

You’re the deciding vote.

This is specifically about the "witness" vote.

But it's also about acquittal. 

The Trib's VERY Subtle Reporting Of The Poll Data

Let's take a break from the overt, slow-motion Senatorial coverup being perpetrated in DC and take a look, instead, at this piece by Deb Erdley over at the Tribune-Review.

Keep an eye out for the subtle skewing of the data.

The frame of the entire piece is found in the headline:

Trump support edges up in Pennsylvania poll as impeachment continues 

And the first paragraph:

President Trump has grown stronger with Pennsylvania voters despite ongoing impeachment proceedings, a poll finds.

The next few paragraphs answer the question of which poll:

A majority of the 628 registered Pennsylvania voters who responded to a Jan. 20-26 Franklin & Marshall Poll said it is time for a change in the White House. Still, 38% of them said President Trump is doing an “excellent” or “good” job as president. That’s a 3% increase from his 35% favorability rating three months earlier.

And 41% said he is doing well enough to be reelected, an increase of 4% from October.

So far all about Trump and how his support "edges up" and "grown stronger" despite impeachment, right?

Let's go take a look at the poll to see the numbers in context. What's the context of that first percentage (38%)?

The data is found in the "Job Performance" section of the poll (pg 7):

About two in five (38%) registered voters in Pennsylvania believes President Trump is doing an “excellent” or “good” job as president, which is slightly higher than his October Franklin & Marshall College Poll rating.

So far, so good. But what about the percentage who thought otherwise? Isn't that number just as important?

For that info we need to go to the "RatePres" table (pg 25) which breaks the 38% down to Excellent - 21% and Good - 17%. (21 + 17 = 38). On the other hand, that very same table tells us that 49% (which would be a full 11% more than 38%) of Pennsylvanians think that Trump is doing a poor job.

Where is that in Erdley's reporting?

If you add the "fair job" percentage (12%) to that you get a whopping 61% of polled Pennsylvanians who think Donald Trump is doing a fair to poor job.*

I realize the piece is about the change in approval ratings since the last poll. The last poll had Trump at 35% Good + Excellent rating against a 54% Poor rating. So while there is a shift up of 3% in the positive numbers and a shift down of 5% in the negative, it has to be seen in reference to the fact that half of Pennsylvania voters think that  Trump is doing a poor job.

Half.

Inching up to 38% from 35% doesn't mean much in comparison, does it?

Go back and read the headline and the first paragraph. It's all true but it hits you somewhat differently now, doesn't it?

Subtle skewing of the data.

Then there's this from the third paragraph:

And 41% said he is doing well enough to be reelected, an increase of 4% from October.

This is from the poll's REPRES table (pg 25). The very next line tells us the percentage of Pennsylvanians who think that "it's time for a change." And that's 57%.

Where is that in Erdley's reporting?

For that, you'll have to go way down in the ninth paragraph, nestled in right after a quotation from a fervid Trump supporter.

In the Franklin and Marshall report the info is in the same sentence:

Two in five (41%) registered voters believe President Trump has done a good enough job to deserve re-election, while three in five (57%) voters say it is time for a change.

In the Trib reporting of that report, those numbers are separated by 6 paragraphs.

In order to emphasize the notion that Trump's numbers are getting stronger in Pennsylvania, they de-emphasize the context of how unpopular he is in Pennsylvania.

Subtle skewing of the data.

See how it works?

* - I'm separating these out because I am not sure if Franklin and Marshal consider "Fair" to be a good thing or a neutral thing or a bad thing. I am thinking that as there are two "positive" ratings (Good and Excellent) there should be two "negative" ratings - but Fair as an adjective isn't really analogous to a "negative good", so I'm stumped.

Senator Pat Toomey, When Will He See The Need To Subpoena Bolton?

A few days ago, Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey discussed the criteria needed to call witnesses in the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump:

But his bar for allowing any outside testimony remains as high as his bar for removing a president from office. He doesn’t see an “automatic presumption” that there must be witnesses in the impeachment trial, arguing that hearing from those individuals should be used to resolve any key disputed facts.

“The criteria is not, does the witness have something interesting to say,” Toomey told Pennsylvania reporters during an interview Friday morning in his Capitol Hill office. “The criteria is, are they likely to be able to shed definitive light on a disputed issue that is so central to this case that the resolution of it could change my final conclusion?”

He also complained that the House managers, while praising their organization and discipline, were "highly repetitive."

This weekend, the New York Times published this:

President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.

The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

The Washington Post also reported this weekend that:

Charles Cooper, a lawyer for Bolton, said he submitted the manuscript to the National Security Council’s records management division on Dec. 30 for a standard review process to examine potentially classified information. Cooper said they believed that the book manuscript did not include any classified material and that its contents would not be shared with officials outside that review process.

December 30 is twelve days after the House vote to impeach Trump. The night of that vote, Senator Mitch McConnell said this on Fox "News":

Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with White House Counsel. There will be no difference between the President’s position and our position as to how to handle this[.]

Senator Toomey, is this enough for you?  Here's a witness (former National Security Advisor John Bolton, a first-hand, eye-witness) who can shed light on a key element of Trump's defense: that the decision to uphold the aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into the Bidens.

Don't you think he should be heard by the full Senate?

Since Majority Leader McConnell has stated that there's no difference between his position and the White House's position on dealing with the impeachment trial, does this mean that Trump's defense team has had access to the contents of Bolton's book, especially since Trump has already gloated that they "have all the material"? 

How can this possibly be the "impartial justice" you took an oath to uphold?

I'm asking as a constituent.

Rep. Guy Reschenthaler, Right-Wing Impeachment Distractor

This morning, Rep. Guy Reschenthaler tweeted this:

Thanks @trish_regan for calling out the ridiculous claims from the far left. Soleimani was a terrorist and enemy combatant, and the world is a safer place since @realDonaldTrump took him off the battlefield. https://t.co/6jtP34S1m7

— Rep. Guy Reschenthaler (@GReschenthaler) January 24, 2020

Wow. There's a lot to unpack.

Let's start in the middle and work our way out, shall we? Fox "News" talking head Trish Regan is appalled that some:

...liberal ex-CIA attorney is now accusing President Trump of HOMICIDE for killing Iranian terrorist general Solemani!

This part of the story is, in fact, true.

In her article at the Daily Beast, ex-CIA attorney Vicki Divoll writes as such:

In bragging that he ordered a successful hit on Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, President Trump has admitted to killing a senior government official of a sovereign state, Iran, while he was traveling in another sovereign state, Iraq. On its face, his conduct and intent satisfy the elements of premeditated murder under Section 1116 of Title 18 of the United States Criminal Code, "Murder or manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, or internationally protected persons."

If you were curious, you can find Section 1116 of Title 18  here. Opens with this:

Whoever kills or attempts to kill a foreign official, official guest, or internationally protected person shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113 of this title.

In this case, Solemani was a "internationally protected person" and the law defines that term as:

...any other representative, officer, employee, or agent of the United States Government, a foreign government, or international organization who at the time and place concerned is entitled pursuant to international law to special protection against attack upon his person...

I'm not a lawyer, but if I am reading the law correctly and despite the obvious blood on his hands, Solemani certainly fit that definition of a protected person entitled to protection against attack.

It's the law. And I am sorry, Rep. Reschenthaler, it's not ridiculous.

On the other hand, you and your party defend a man for whom the term "rule of law" has utterly no meaning.

Now let's back out of that to Guy's opening:

Solemani was taking the pallets of cash that Obama had sent him as part of that bunk nuclear deal...

There it is. Those mythological Obama "pallets of cash" that the GOP likes to reference (but not explain) whenever it's cornered.

I'll let Reuters explain this, again:

The United States and Iran on Sunday settled a longstanding claim at the Hague, releasing to Tehran $400 million in funds frozen since 1981 plus $1.3 billion in interest, the State Department said.

The funds were part of a trust fund once used by Iran to purchase military equipment from the United States but which was tied up for decades in litigation at the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal.

Yes, Solemani was a beast among men, no question. But assassination is against the law.

The ends do not justify the means.

Nor should they justify lying to the American People (as you did with those "pallets of cash"), Rep. Reschenthaler.

From Stephen Colbert, Last Night

Last night, speaking of Representative Adam Schiff (D-CA) Stephen Colbert said:

It was gratifying to see someone taking the constitutional responsibility of their office seriously.

He laid out the case against the president clearly, passionately, cogently, and I believe, courageously.

Because whether or not President Trump is removed from office, history will not forgive those who looked the other way at his abuses or forget those who stepped in the breach at this moment of crisis.

History will not forgive those who looked the other way.

Message To Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA)

Senator, CNN reported today:

The Senate early Wednesday morning approved rules for the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump on a party-line vote that delays the question of whether the Senate should subpoena witnesses and documents until later in the trial.

The rules resolution from Senate Majority Mitch McConnell was approved 53-47 after Republicans defeated a series of amendments from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on the opening day of the bitterly fought impeachment trial. Schumer proposed 11 amendments seeking to subpoena a trove of documents from the Trump administration and witnesses like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and former national security adviser John Bolton, but the amendments were thwarted almost entirely by the same party-line vote, 53-47.

You voted with your party (the 53) each time.

You're participating in a cover-up, Senator. You know that, right?

You took an oath to "do impartial justice" and yet you're voting for rules designed to shield the president from Constitutional oversight.

You're participating in a cover-up.

UPDATE:

Senator, have you seen the video of Trump bragging about withholding material from the impeachment trial?

Here it is:

The second article of impeachment was for obstruction of Congress: covering up witnesses and documents from the American people.

This morning the President not only confessed to it, he bragged about it:

"Honestly, we have all the material. They don't have the material." pic.twitter.com/DPAEFHIDjS

— Rep. Val Demings (@RepValDemings) January 22, 2020

You're participating in a cover-up, Senator.

Senator Pat Toomey On McConnell's NEW Impeachment Rules

Pennsylvania Senator Pat Toomey released the following statement regarding the upcoming Senate trial on the impeachment of Donald Trump:

The impeachment of any president is an extraordinary event and I take my role in the Senate process very seriously," said Senator Toomey. "The Senate should conduct a fair trial consistent with past precedent. We will allow House managers to make their case, the President's lawyers to make their defense, and senators to pose questions. At the conclusion of these presentations, the Senate can then decide what, if any, further steps are necessary." [Emphasis added.]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has released legislation outlining the rules for that impeachment trial that the Senate will debate.

Senator Toomey, these rules are not consistent with past precedent. In fact, they openly stack the deck in favor of the impeached Donald Trump. McConnell's rules are, however, consistent with his promise of "total coordination" with the White House during the trial

An aside, Senator Toomey: how is this in any way the "impartial justice" that you took an oath to uphold?

The NYTimes is reporting how these new rules differ from the Clinton rules your majority leader promised:

Like in the Clinton trial, the Democratic House impeachment managers and Mr. Trump’s defense lawyers will have up to 24 hours to argue their respective cases for and against conviction on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. But in 1999, the Senate imposed no additional limit on how the time was used. Mr. McConnell’s proposal states that each side much complete its work within two days, beginning as early as Wednesday.

And:

When the Clinton trial opened, the Senate “admitted into evidence,” printed and shared with senators all records generated by the House impeachment inquiry into Mr. Clinton. Not so this time.

Though the House’s evidence from the Trump impeachment inquiry would still be printed and shared with senators, it would only be formally considered by the Senate as part of its official record if a majority of senators voted to do so. That vote could only take place after the Senate decided whether to call witnesses and seek additional documents — that is, as the trial moves toward conclusion.

And:

As expected, the draft resolution does not incorporate Democratic demands that the trial guarantee witness testimony or requests for new documents. This was also the case in the Clinton trial, but Mr. McConnell’s proposal still differs slightly.

It says that after senators conclude their questioning, they will not immediately entertain motions to call individual witnesses or documents. Instead, they will decide first whether they want to consider new evidence at all. Only if a majority of senators agree to do so will the managers and prosecutors be allowed to propose and argue for specific witnesses or documents, each of which would then be subject to an additional vote.

The Times opened its piece on McConnell's rule changes with this:

For weeks, Senator Mitch McConnell sought to deflect charges that he was trying to stack the deck in favor of President Trump in his impeachment trial by repeating that he was merely replicating the Senate’s only modern precedent: the 1999 trial of President Bill Clinton.

“What was good enough for President Clinton in an impeachment trial should have been good enough for President Trump,” he told reporters this month, as Democrats pressed him to include a new guarantee for witnesses and documents. “And all we are doing here is saying we are going to get started in exactly the same way that 100 senators agreed to 20 years ago.”

Senator, Mitch McConnell promised what you're calling for, "a fair trial consistent with past precedent" but what he delivered was not.

I'll state it outright, Senator Toomey, if you go along with McConnell's cover-up, you'll be forever tainted by Trump's impeachment.