DEEPER STATE of THINGS .

Just Where are the Senate hearings on this ?
ASK Nancy , Schumer , Shiff , McConnell.

 (1)>>WE were Lied about the the Iraq War , we  are  always pretty much sucked into thinking that any war America gets into for for spreading Democracy. Remember that the Bush administration of using the war in Iraq to draw the nation's attention away from other problems, such as the economic recession of 2002. The meaning was later inverted to describe Bush's alleged attempts to divert attention away from the war following a drop in public support for the war. But for nearly 20 years , the longest war America was ever involved in , the war was on two fronts . Thanks to the lies of the elected Government, the Pentagon and the media,  lots of brainwashing over the decades . The War in Afghanistan was a UTTER FAILURE a  (2)>>huge wast of American Tax payer dollars . The Washington Post began a new series,   confidential trove of 2,000 pages of government documents that revealed that senior U.S. officials repeatedly failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan. They document in detail a practice of lying, deception and whitewashing that covered up unmistakable evidence that the war had no grand plan, no end in sight and no consistent leadership.  called “The Afghanistan Papers,” based on documents obtained by the newspaper of an internal military report on “lessons learned” from Afghanistan since the American invasion in 2002. The Post deliberately echoed the Pentagon Papers in the title, and the series explicitly draws parallels with the earlier scoop. This comparison might seem like hype, but the revelations in the Afghan report live up to its precursor. Like the Pentagon Papers, the Afghanistan Papers make clear that policy-makers consistently held a much more pessimistic private view of the Afghan War than they ever admitted in public. A feel-good story of progress was sold to the American people by military leaders and politicians who knew the truth was very different.What is important in these hundreds of interviews – given by key US players to a US federal agency without the expectation their words would see the light of day – is the shocking and often granular candour,  (3)>>detailing how politicians, commanders and senior diplomats lied to themselves as they lied to US voters  We need to stop and pause at this reality because within it is the entire reason why the war has become the disaster that it is today. The United States never cared about counting the bodies of dead Afghans caused by the war they started.  (4)>>They didn’t count the dead, they didn’t count the wounded, and they didn’t count the displaced or traumatized..And while much confirms what has already been available in memoirs, reporting and testimony to Congress, what is valuable in this collection of documents is the detail – and the depiction of how the biggest lies in conflict are an accumulation of bad faith, groupthink and cowardice.

UK , Brexit , Boris and the US 2020 Election .

  

Trump and Boris . Political Twins?

If the U.K.'s Brexit vote foreshadowed Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, yesterday's landslide for Boris Johnson  (5)>>could be a warning sign for America's liberal Democrats in 2020.Donald Trump, in his telling, could have shot somebody on Fifth Avenue and won. Boris Johnson could mislead the queen. He could break his promise to get Britain out of Europe by Oct. 31. He could lie about Turks invading Britain and the cost of European Union membership. He could make up stories about building 40 new hospitals. He could double down on the phantom $460 million a week that Brexit would deliver to the National Health Service — and still win a landslide Tory electoral victory not seen since Margaret Thatcher’s triumph in 1987. The big question remains though, how should the Democrats play the campaign next year? To me, it’s “stay the course”. Improvement to our health care system, jobs, and education remain fertile ground to garner more votes from the independents, and moderate Republicans. I don’t know who the Democrats will nominate, but what really matters, as I view it, is not so much the candidate than, what they stand for and the party platform Democrats spent years pushing a bizarre conspiracy theory that Russia “stole” the election. In reality, Trump’s opponents wanted to steal the election results .As soon as Trump made his fateful phone call to Ukraine,  (6)>>the resistance had a new weapon to overturn 2016. All of a sudden, Trump didn’t conspire with Moscow, but with Putin’s mortal enemy in Kyiv. Just as they promised before the president was sworn in, the Democratic House impeached Donald Trump. Soon, the GOP Senate will dispatch their desperate effort and keep him in office. But the damage remains. As in the UK, the US has witnessed a three-year temper tantrum over results that the losers didn’t like. Leaders in both nations could have spent their time improving the lives of their citizens; instead, they tried to block the people’s will.The democratic leadership is feckless and I feel it doesn't represent the majority of Many Democrats.Doubtless Donald has been mulling over the electoral results . As far as I am aware, our nomination has never, in ANY election, been set at this point except when our candidate was running as the incumbent. And for the 2016 election, the Republican nomination was completely up-in-the-air; the presumed frontrunner was Jeb Bush at this point. And it was significantly later than this that Marco Rubio hired Fusion GPS to investigate Trump. I think the messages of the Democratic candidates are not really clear first of all. The election in the UK was decisive and it placed the petty-minded conservative leadership in charge. Why petty-minded? Because so much of their support came from those Brits who believe in a new "Rule Britannia", a fantasy if there ever was one. Consider it the Brit version of MAGA.  History really is doomed to repeat itself. Maybe instead of marveling the swinging pendulum of the times, we should marvel both G.B. and the U.S.'s impotence in changing both their flawed voting systems that allow Minority Rule, while touting "democratic principles." That's the real story.  He has even said he sees in Boris’ election “harbingers” of a successful cisatlantic or catastrophic  election of 2020.

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1)>>WE were Lied about the the Iraq War .Washington Post reporting showed that the conflict in Afghanistan has been an operation of deception, as the war’s architects knowingly misled the public about its objectives and progress." The primary architects of the war were President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld but what's even sadder is all the Generals that went along with it  not to mention all the soldiers who died or were physically and mentally maimed for life. If that's what happened in Afghanistan, what do you think happened in Iraq? Just more of the same. It's just another confirmation of the disaster President Bush and his administration were.  (2)>>huge wast of American Tax payer dollars .  One has to wonder how much money the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Lockheed, Colt, Raytheon, etc.) made off the Afghanistan War.And how much of that was plowed back into Washington in the form of political donations. It seems more than likely that that cycle may have had something to do with perpetuating the war for as long as it has. The original mission in Afghanistan was to capture Osama vin Ladin and al Qaeda leaders who planned the 9-11 Terror Attacks, but it morphed into a war between our political parties. Presidents know that they if they  pull U.S. troops out of a conflict zone, the  oppositional party will accuse then of abandoning U.S. allies. For example, Democrats accused Trump of abandoning the Kurds when pulled U.S. troop away from the Turkey-Suyrian border. If he pulls the remaining troop out of Afghanistan, he will be accused of abandoning Afghans allies to the mercy of the Taliban. Similarly, Republican criticized Obama for pulling U.S. forces out of Iraq, which permitted the rise if ISIS,.(3)>>detailing how politicians, commanders and senior diplomats lied to themselves as they lied to US voters. One has to wonder how much money the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Lockheed, Colt, Raytheon, etc.) made off the Afghanistan War.And how much of that was plowed back into Washington in the form of political donations.It seems more than likely that that cycle may have had something to do with perpetuating the war for as long as it has.  As for the electorate, the problem lies in our perpetual desire to look past obvious facts in order to embrace the things we wish to believe.  Credulity gives propaganda its power and guarantees that we will empower leaders who will repeat our past mistakes. (4)>>They didn’t count the dead, they didn’t count the wounded, and they didn’t count the displaced or traumatized.The U.S. spends way too much money on its military.   If we spent more on social programs, such as healthcare and education we would be a more humane society.  As it is, the U.S. is very imperialistic and citizens who assume their government doesn't lie to them regularly are simply not thinking.  The point to be made is that the same principles of deliberate manipulation of the truth that was "optimistically" employed in Afghanistan in order to steer that population in a desired direction are used in America every night to manipulate the American people.  It is done on the right and the left.  (5)>>could be a warning sign for America's liberal Democrats in 2020. The Democrats unified ? There are still over 10 candidates left and none of them can muster even 30% of the vote. BUT ,by following their social media posts it is clear that even Warren and Sanders supporters are tearing each other's throats out. What do you think is going to happen when the survivor of that duo goes against Biden, Buttigieg or god forbid Bloomberg in the late primaries and convention ?  If Warren or Bernie are nominated it will scare moderate Democrats, including a sizable percentage of Black and Hispanic voters to Trump. Remember that Obama was able to win because he was able to make people feel good. It is also quite possible that conditions in Britain by next November will serve as a warning to American voters. In any event, it will be significantly more difficult to divide Democrats next year, either for Trump and his campaign . But we are going to continue to hear that the Russians " are planning to meddle in our election" . AS I said its a distraction to keep people from voting , yes blame the Russians , the fear monger lurking in our media to create a huge distraction . The more and more people will confused crating a paradox that no one is going to like it.  (6)>>  the resistance had a new weapon to overturn 2016.  When Trump became President in 2017, I was convinced it was a fluke. The Electoral College was against the Democrats even though they had 3+ million more votes. So we’d just ride out the storm and in 2020 elect a Democrat ? A Trump victory will come about for significantly different reasons than why Johnson won. There is still hope. We have a very ugly year to lurch through before November 2020. Trump can disrupt in ways that we have yet to imagine and fear over 'socialism' will not be a main driver of the political storm to come.

The Impeachment "Aftermath"

The Day After Trump's Impeachment "after thoughts" . WELL it was inevitable  that Trump was heading on the road to impeachment from the first day he was elected in office . I REALLY believe that the Democrats were looking for a needle in the haystack to give them the fuel to attempt to remove Donald Trump from office .  It’s not just WE KNOW THAT Trump is angry and looking for vindication. It’s the (1.1)>>63 million people who voted for him in the first place that want to see the Democrats take a stumble. BUT Trump is still confused. He will not outwit Nancy. Presently she has nothing to gain by turning the impeachment over to the Senate. She will, and should, take her time waiting for the most impact. She is aware the Republicans are ready to find him not guilty so what does she have to gain by giving them a chance to vote. At the very least, the closer the hearings are held to the GOP convention, or even the election, the better.  As I have been writing on this subject for nearly two years that Trump is hated because of his policies , You pick the Trump outrage that's got liberals in a tizzy and I'll point to an equal and not-so-opposite they had no problem with when it was authored by a Democrat. Crazy as it is , Obama crafted the same policies that outraged the Republicans for Eight Years . Now under the Leadership of Nancy Pelosi the Democrats have taken sort of political revenge on the Republican party by going after Trump in various nefarious ways , most of all accusing him of being a  (1.2)>>Russian Agent for Putin .   ALSO , speaking about Trump I like to add that Trump is not the most "intelligent" US President in History. He is his own worst enemy . His recent actions on getting dirt on Biden "by asking the Ukrainian President " its a bit hawkish   , it undermines real opposition research.  (1.3 )>>It also reveals our nation's inapt foreign policy by selling weapons to another country so it could fight on cold war terms : Russia .  I kidded around with some of my friends that Trump could have phoned me about dirt on Biden and his son , because if you look at the Internet there are nearly thousands of news items on Biden - Ukraine . Trump could have saved himself the phone call . NOW this impeachment  is such a convoluted mess in regards to what our US constitution say, in what matter he broke the LAW . The Democrats assert that Trump " asked a foreign country to meddle in our election". Study those words . The Transcript make no mention of meddling. The other fact is that the Democratic side is twisting things , while at the same time siding with the Republican Party to Meddle in the Government of Ukraine with billions of dollars in arm sales , possibly building a  (2)>>US military base in Ukraine. So you have it.   The day after he was impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, he dismissed the judgment of the House of Representatives and punched back by celebrating with a Democratic congressman who switched parties to stand with him.“I don’t feel like I’m being impeached because it’s a hoax, it’s a setup,” Mr. Trump insisted as he showcased Representative Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey, the newly minted Republican, and lookedbeyond his seemingly certain acquittal in a Senate trial to next fall’s election.Trump, on the other hand, is Republican and crass and loud. He doesn't know what he's talking about and he doesn't care that everyone knows it.  If Trump is removed from office, Mike Pence becomes president. So all of the folks who voted for a Republican president still end up with a Republican president. (3)>>It's not like Hillary Clinton suddenly becomes president. That would be a nullification of the election result. Now it appears the Pelosi is up to something , REMEMBER " GREEKS BARING GIFTS " ↔. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is refraining from transmitting the articles of impeachment to the Senate until  (4)>>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) sets rules for the trial that are accepted by Senate Democrats. Pelosi’s move could push a trial centered on Trump’s conduct toward Ukraine further into an election year and deny him the swift acquittal he is seeking from the Republican-led Senate. The speaker on Friday invited Trump to deliver the State of the Union address Feb. 4, potentially during the trial. Trump accused Pelosi in a tweet of “looking for a Quid Pro Quo with the Senate" for refusing to send the articles of impeachment until Democrats accept the rules for a Senate trial.“Why aren’t we Impeaching her?” Trump asked. This isn't the first time Trump has suggested that Pelosi or other members of Congress be impeached. Speaker Pelosi understands that this is a political fight rather than a judicial trial. With Congress is leaving Washington for the holidays and the Senate wasn’t going to begin an impeachment trial until January anyway. Still, it leaves the anticipated next step of the impeachment saga — Trump’s Senate trial, which was expected to start (and end) in January — in at least some doubt.  The fact that she’s not likely to win the trial makes winning the politics even more important.

NOTES AND COMMENTS: 

(1.1)>>63 million people who voted for him in the first place .Trump is a master brand builder and self promoter reality star. He is also a chronic liar, cad,un-intelligent fraud and immoral con-man. He would not be president today without his TV star show "The Apprentice " that sealed his persona to many americans as a no-nonsense business man. He has a rock solid base of supporters at 35%-40% that absolutely nothing he could do to make them defect. Its not about a cult its about how he appeals to their basic needs of America " the greatest" and their love for authority figures and macho fighters. Face it Trump was born for this and politics is a street fight. He not going out so easy , hell keep punching right up to 2020 AD. (1)>>Russian Agent for Putin . There is, after thousands of articles and scores of hours of Congressional testimony, still not a smidgen of evidence (much less proof) that Russia influenced the election. Yet here you have Democrats -- the gang that's supposed to be into the Truth about climate change and science and all -- calling for impeachment. Why this bizarre conspiracy theory? Why not simply impeach him for being stupid? But I digress. Russia-bashing completely without cause, older readers will recall, is the traditional go-to of the right-wing. What are fine Rachel Maddow-watchers like you doing in an ugly hidey-hole like this?(1.2 )>>It also reveals our nation's inapt foreign policy by selling weapons to another country. Indeed it was Obama who did the damage. Trying to entice Ukraine into NATO and calling it "our ally" is insane. How would you like it if Putin referred to Canada as a "Russian ally"? Now Crimea is lost to Ukraine and bashing Putin is not enough of a pleasure to make up for the loss. The fact our government is selling weapons to Ukraine is vary troublesome . The United States should have been the "deal maker" between Russia and Ukraine instead of rushing to judgment that Putin is evil without just cause in 2014 . Obama meddled in Russian politics , siding with a "rebels" who overthrew a government that was elected by the Ukrainian people . The question of who is meddling where has to be brought open in the light.(2)>>US military base in Ukraine.  Moscow has long complained that Washington is propping up a pro-Western government in Ukraine that launched the war in the east, where more than 6,000 people have been killed since last year.It also believes Ukraine’s campaign against the rebels is actually part of a broader Western plot aimed at undermining Russia. That’s despite Western allegations that Moscow is fueling the pro-Russian insurgency through weapons and even military support. The program, dubbed Operation Fearless Guardian, is also Washington’s way of signaling support for Ukraine while avoiding a full-on confrontation with Russia by providing offensive weapons. The White House has already promised Ukraine nonlethal military aid, like armored Humvees, surveillance dronesand first-aid kits, worth $75 million. Centered at the Ochakiv Naval Base and the military facility at Mykolaiv — 40 miles east of Odessa and less than 100 northwest of Crimea — the American-funded effort includes reinforcing and upgrading existing piers and adding a new floating dock, security fencing around the bases, ship repair facilities, and a pair of brand-new Maritime Operations Centers from which Ukrainian and NATO forces can direct exercises and coordinate activities.A majority of the effort is taking place at the Ochakiv, which has seen a series of visits from US Navy construction teams over the past few years.  Again , many Americans are not even aware why this is causing serious tensions between Russia and the United States . (3)>>It's not like Hillary Clinton suddenly becomes president. For Mrs. Clinton, the defeat signaled an astonishing end to a political dynasty that has colored Democratic politics for a generation. Eight years after losing to President Obama in the Democratic primary — and 16 years after leaving the White House for the United States Senate, as President Bill Clinton exited office — she had seemed positioned to carry on two legacies: her husband’s and the president’s. She still has the nerve to insist that Trump is an “illegitimate president.”. Clinton wanted a rematch with Trump and assumed she was keeping her options open. She started a slush fund and tried to assume a leading voice of opposition during the 2018 midterms.All of which suggests that, should Hillary want to run again, she would have an impossibly steep climb. And the clock is speeding toward the moment when it will simply be too late to even try.(4)>>Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell . At the heart of the tension is the Constitution’s only two grants of “sole power.” The House has exclusive authority to impeach the president. The Senate has exclusive authority to “try all impeachments.” Some legal scholars say the Senate can simply declare that the president has been impeached — citing the House’s approval of two articles charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — and hold a trial without delay. Conversely, some Trump allies say perhaps the brouhaha about transferring articles means the president technically hasn’t been impeached yet; if he already is, the thinking goes, the Senate wouldn’t have to wait on the perfunctory transfer of articles from the House to begin a trial. A hitch in that argument is the Senate’s own 1,500-page manual of rules of procedure, which declare that an impeachment trial can’t begin until the House names “impeachment managers” to deliver the case to the Senate. Though the Senate has the power to change that process, so far there’s been no effort or energy to do so. The remaining Senate procedures on the books spell out the conduct of the Senate trial once it begins.

What EVER Happened to the ART of the DEAL?

What EVER Happened to the ART of the DEAL? There are ALL kinds of Art , there are the "arts" that we are so familiar . There are ALSO the Magick Arts too.  Donald Trump appeared in many guises—billionaire real-estate tycoon, golf-course mogul, beauty-pageant impresario, reality-television star—before his blindsiding rise to the presidency of the United States.  When I first saw Donald J Trump's book called the "Art of the Deal" . I had assumed that Trump was to be the great negotiator in Chief . Example his expertise could have been applied to other nations . Trump’s lack of success at international negotiations is largely matched on the domestic front. There have been no substantive talks on infrastructure, immigration, or health care, three of his key promises. WELL Health care reform  kicked the bucket ! (1)>>If Trump were just doing a deal that was for the benefit of the US, that would be one thing.  Before this, America alternated between isolationist and expansionist. The country viewed the world order suspiciously, and only came out to play when we could "win the game." This post , I am going to be a bit critical of Trump with all do seriousness.  In the book, Trump highlights bargaining strategies that have served his commercial real estate empire well. Well he said that he would bring this art with his foreign policy . While these tactics are misplaced in the world of international relations, they have still galvanized his approach to trade. Understanding Trump’s strategies in real estate puts his trade policy (both in what has happened and what to expect) in clear perspective. Trump has overseen major, possibly permanent, shifts in U.S. foreign policy that went on full display this weekend in France as the president met  with other world leaders at the Group of Seven summit. Mocked by peers behind his back at a NATO meeting in London, Mr. Trump abruptly canceled a news conference and bolted early, only to fly home to a capital in the throes of judging whether he is fit for office. After hobnobbing with the queen, the president now faces the daunting likelihood that by Christmas he will become the third president impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. BESIDES that , here is the bottom line .  (2)>>Donald Trump has been cornered by the wall , he is in a particular state that he can't conduct any business with any foreign leaders like Putin for example . Getting along with Russia has been one of the highlights of hope that would have ended the new cold war . A complete list of the deals foreign and domestic that Trump has promised and then failed to make would be too long for this space, but here are just a few A trade deal with China [Pending]  A new nuclear deal with Iran[ mulled by politics]  A deal to get North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons[ still pending]  A deal to end U.S. involvement in Afghanistan[ not happening because of the military industrial complex ] A peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians [ not going to happen because Trump just recognized Jerusalem as Israels capital ]  A deal to make Mexico pay for a border wall [ Forget this , it was a dumb idea anyway]  A deal to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act with “something terrific”[ STILL HAS NOT HAPPENED ]  A deal on new gun-safety measures [ never WILL HAPPEN, since Trump has been in the pockets of the NRA anyway] Trump apparently tried to make a deal with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky — you find me dirt on Joe Biden, and I’ll release the military aid Congress appropriated — and the result is that not only did he not get what he wanted, he will likely be impeached because of it.   Trump did not get the US to back the illegal coup that overthrew the legal Ukrainian gov't in 2014 that spawned the vote by Crimea to abandon the Ukraine. Neo con diplomats, working against Obama's policy, perpetrated it. What we see is the manipulation of NATO for use in neo con schemes, started during the Clinton Administration.  EITHER CASE our Foreign policy is in teeters with almost every nation in the globe. I don't blame all that on Trump , the way I see this , the Obama administration started the deterioration of American Foreign policy with the Middle East uprising known as the Arab Spring , his subsequent policy  failure toward Syria has drawn in Russia now doing exactly what our nation should have been doing something called Humanitarian aide . The majority of US citizens, on both left and right, know little about the details of our interactions with the world and care less. The US has garnered by it's overall behavior in some parts of the world. However, what we mostly hear about is the world's criticism of our policies. There's a lot that should be criticized, but external criticism does more to reinforce bad behavior than prevent it. The Art of the Deal Diplomacy employed by Trump and embraced by his team may have been an effective negotiating tactic in deals with Hyatt over Manhattan’s Commodore Hotel, but it may not be as effective when determining American foreign policy world wide. This is especially true considering the almost Cold War-like rivalry in the region over the past ten years and the growing competition between Russia and China and the US. The goal of peace and stability world wide should have been at the center of US policy . And while the international community and the US government agree on the intended outcome, time again will decide whether Trump’s diplomatic strategy will ever make a comeback.

Thoughts on the Impeachment hearings :
 (3)>>The impeachment inquiry into what actions Trump took to push Ukraine to investigate his political rival started in the House Intelligence Committee, but the House Judiciary Committee would be responsible for drafting the articles of impeachment. The House would vote on whether to impeach Trump, before the Republican-led Senate is likely to squash it anyway . The Democrats have have lined up witnesses as you know . What is missing is the actual whistle blower, but what has  (4)>>the media spinning is the "experts" that were called during the hearings , mainly so called Constitutional scholars who gave ridiculous statements as proof that Donald Trump abused his power .  During the House Judiciary Committee’s first impeachment hearing on Wednesday, one of the witnesses, Stanford University professor Pamela Karlan, made a reference to President Donald Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron, in explaining the difference between the president and a king.“Contrary to what President Trump says, Article Two [of the Constitution] does not give him the power to do anything he wants,”  (5)>>Karlan said. “And I’ll just give you one example that shows you the difference between him and a king, which is the Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he cannot make him a baron.” IT looked like a tough day for Democrats , but Republicans took issue with the mention of Trump's 13-year-old son, and used the comment to cast Karlan as biased. Karlan apologized for the remark later in the hearing. The Trump campaign issued a statement calling on Democrats to repudiate “Karlan and call on her to personally apologize to the president and first lady for mocking their son on national TV.” The Constitutional scholars were biased in the first place.  The quip sparked some chuckles in the audience, but the situation quickly spun out of control. The White House and some Republicans cried foul at the use of Barron’s name, since he’s a child. It’s true that it is a norm to leave the president’s children out of partisan attacks, but this wasn’t really an attack. Karlan wasn’t making a dig at Barron Trump, she was just making a point about presidential powers. These scholars were invited to opine on the Constitution and the meaning of the impeachment clause—whether Trump’s actions as revealed by the inquiry into his Ukraine dealings constitute impeachable offenses in light of the law. But California Republican Tom McClintock had a more personal question for the academics, asking the panel of four to raise their hands if they supported Trump’s election in 2016. Stanford Law School professor Pamela Karlan, an expert on voting law, was clearly horrified, responding, “I have a right to cast a secret ballot.” And Harvard Law School scholar  (5)>>Noah Feldman pointed out that not raising hands didn’t indicate an answer but an objection to the question itself. McClintock’s point was to undermine the witnesses’ presentations by pointing out their personal politics. The implication is that they can’t possibly offer a reliable interpretation of the law because they dislike Trump, and therefore their testimony can be dismissed as partisan rhetoric. The Democrats want to rush to impeachment based on a political calendar that would have them skip the steps required to fully make their case. The sole Republican witness in Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment, George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, made a strong case that the impeachment strategy the Democrats are pursuing is deeply flawed. Now  If  you want these facts on what we presume Trump did,you've got to also take these facts the majority right now frankly is lost a great big blurb of removing Trump . The BIG OBSTACLE rushing Trump out a year before the election.Its  simply too far away, to break through the public consciousness and move enough voters undecided on the facts of the case toward the Democratic position.


NOTES AND COMMENTS :

 (1)>>If Trump were just doing a deal that was for the benefit of the US, that would be one thing. On the contrary, his various high-profile efforts at restarting negotiations with China, Iran, North Korea and other nations have—at least since the signing of his much-mocked makeover of NAFTA in 2018—all run aground.  But this article fails to emphasize that this isn’t *that* kind of deal. Here we have Trump throwing our collective national interest under the bus to get a deal that benefits no one but *himself.*. So far Trump's deal with other nations are not complete in regards to a sound foreign policy . Leaving North Korea I think is foolhardy , cynical . Or How Trump pulled out of a Treaty with Iran as examples . OR , He called off his visit to a close U.S. ally, Denmark—a country with a prime minister who’s also a natural political ally, because she’s as anti-immigrant as he is—ostensibly because the Danes refused to consider selling him Greenland (which, technically, may not be Denmark’s to sell anyway, since it is a semi-autonomous territory with its own prime minister).To many longtime Trump watchers, the president’s poor performance at the diplomatic negotiating table is all of a piece with his over hyped career in business.(2)>>Donald Trump has been cornered by the wall . The vary minute that Trump was called Putin's puppet , and an illegitimate President he was throwen a curb ball , he's  at a wall created by his Democratic Congress persons . Really He  Can't even pick up the RED phone to stop some kind of attack on the US , BECAUSE NANCY is  watching . The Russia gate has made Americans suspicious of Trump fueling fears of our election system  , perhaps stalling any kind of sound negotiations with Russia on Nuclear Arms control.(3)>>The impeachment inquiry . Only a slim majority of Americans endorse the proceedings — which means that for tens of millions of Americans, Donald Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, and they’re O.K. with it. Democrats believe it was an abuse of power; everyone else, it seems, believes President Trump was just trying to do a deal. Americans at large finally get to see the House impeachment hearings,  but that doesn’t make this “inquiry” any less of a farce.Democrats from Speaker Nancy Pelosi on down are open about their intentions here: The point now isn’t to examine the evidence so they can decide whether to impeach President Trump, but simply to sway public opinion against him. And never mind that this course all but guarantees that the Senate won’t vote to convict him, and so remove him from office: Pelosi evidently only cares about 1) appeasing the Democratic base, which started demanding impeachment the day Trump won, and 2) dirtying up the president to boost the chances of beating him at the ballot box next November.   If rumors about the identity of the Ukraine whistleblower are true, it’s easy to see why Republicans have been pushing witnesses to name him — because it goes a long way to making Democrats’ impeachment case look like a rerun of the “collusion” delusion. (4)>>the media spinning is the "experts".These “experts” do not care what’s actually contained in Schiff’s biased, ridiculous report any more than Schiff cared about lying about working with the “whistleblower” to contrive this entire shameful episode. They care even less about what happened on a phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Like the Democrat politicians running this circus, all three of them want Trump impeached, embarrassed, and, if possible, thrown out of office because they do not like his politics.These professors are liberal activists who are still livid that Trump defeated their preferred candidate, Hillary Clinton, and they’ve spent the last three years looking for something, anything, that might give them a chance to kick Trump out of office.(5)>>Karlan said. Three of the witnesses, including Karlan, had been called by Democrats to testify that the evidence gathered regarding Trump’s dealings with Ukraine meets the historical definition of impeachment. The other witness had been called by Republicans. Few Democratic or Republican politicians put a question to a witness from the other side.   Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan ruptured eardrums when she bellowed out her conclusion that in Trump’s dealing with Ukraine, the president had attempted to “strong-arm a foreign leader” and that his conduct was “a cardinal reason why the Constitution contains an impeachment power.”Karlan cracked a joke that delighted liberals and infuriated conservatives. Or rather, it delighted conservatives because it gave them a talking point to whip up outrage. (5)>>Noah Feldman pointed out. The second witness, Harvard professor and Bloomberg News columnist Noah Feldman, also has a long paper trail to contradict the notion that Adam Schiff’s report was what finally convinced him of the need to impeach Trump.Almost immediately after Trump won the 2016 election, Feldman was indulging #Resistance fantasies about the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C., allegedly violating the Constitution's emoluments clause.In March 2017, he said that Trump deserved to be impeached for pointing out, correctly, that the Obama administration had surveilled his associates. Two months later, Feldman claimed Trump should be impeached for allegedly asking former FBI Director James Comey to stop trying to intimidate and entrap former Trump administration official Michael Flynn. By June 2017, he was calling for Congress to “act before the courts” and impeach Trump over what former special counsel Robert Mueller might find. In 2018, he called Trump’s 2016 joke about Russia finding Hillary’s emails impeachable. At the start of this year, it was Buzzfeed’s discredited report about the president supposedly telling Michael Cohen to lie that Feldman deemed “clearly impeachable.”During the current Ukraine fracas, Feldman has stayed true to form, writing article after article siding with Democrats and deriding Trump — just as he has done throughout the Trump administration.

Billionaires running for president . Not a good Idea .

 (1)>>So why then are so many billionaires running for president in the 2020 cycle or shopping for the office? Naturally, the presence of another billionaire in the race for the White House has irked other candidates who balk at the idea of buying one’s way to the presidency. After all, for all intents and purposes, the United States is already run by its billionaires. They should care about us enough to make things official.But hey, billionaires: Running for president is actually a bad idea. You’re very unlikely to win, it’s not clear that you have the skills to do the job well, and there are much, much better ways to make a difference in the world with your billions.   If you like America, you should put a ring on it! Faux billionaire Donald Trump is obviously in again. (He’s been running since he was elected the first time.) There’s a billionaire in the White House and two of the top Democratic rivals for Trump’s job That hasn’t stopped another billionaire, hedge-fund mogul (1.2)>>Tom Steyer, running for the Democratic nomination. And now former New York mayor (2)>>Mike Bloomberg, founder of the eponymous media empire, is also making moves to enter the race, fired up by the billionaire bashing. Ironically, Bloomberg (net worth $52.3bn) signaled his intention to get in the race by getting his name on the ballot in Alabama, one of the poorest states in the union with a median household income of $48,123.  The most troubling aspect of this is the prospect that Bloomberg might actually think this could happen—that he has enough name recognition (and positive name recognition at that), enough broadly appealing ideas, enough political wizardry, and enough money to pull it off .  (2.1)>>The myth of the political outsider has given raise to these ultra rich wannabes . A billionaires' takeover of the U.S. government was not one of Trump's signature campaign promises, but in retrospect it was obvious he wasn't going to bring in the sustainability MBAs—he doesn't know any. Instead, he set up a government of, by and for his peers (or men the famously insecure Trump wishes to call his peers). (3)>>His Cabinet of millionaires and billionaires is the richest in American history. The New York billionaires, though, have more in common with Russian oligarchs and Nigerian petro-magnates than with almost any other Americans—whether they are flipping burgers at McDonald's. One of the Bloomberg ads, titled “Promise”, explains: “Mike is running for president to beat Trump and have the wealthy pay their fair share to build an economy that works for everyone.” But many see Bloomberg’s entry into the race as further evidence of anxiety among the ultra-wealthy about the prospect of Sanders or Warren raising their taxes … somewhat. The phenomenon has become very real in the past few years. While Ross Perot was considered a curiosity when he ran as an independent in 1992 and 1996, brand-name business figures no longer seem unusual in presidential politics. In this election cycle alone, Schultz, Michael Bloomberg, Oprah Winfrey, Tom Steyer, Mark Zuckerberg and Mark Cuban have all been floated as potential challengers to Trump. Name recognition, an apparent record of success in business and personal resources were enough for Trump, these candidates seem to say, so why wouldn’t it be enough for them? Trump spent $66.1 million of his own money on his 2016 campaign. For billionaires with a bigger bottom line and a larger sense of themselves, such a price seems a bargain too good to ignore. But Mr. Bloomberg could also reshape the race in other ways, intensifying the Democrats’ existing debates about economic inequality and corporate power, and offering fodder to the party’s rising populist wing, led by Senators Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who contend that the extremely rich already wield far too much influence in politics. Mr. Bloomberg has repeatedly expressed discomfort with certain policies favored by both Ms. Warren and Mr. Sanders.   (4)>>The 2020 election was already slated to be a record-breaking political advertising event. Now that Bloomberg and Steyer have both jumped into the race, advertising spend on the presidential race alone could exceed the $3 billion predicted by experts. Billionaires often have high approval ratings, but their image tends to take a battering when they enter the public arena. In part, that’s because people were evaluating them as (hugely successful) people, not as politicians, and they’ll inevitably turn off many voters as they start to take stances on the issues. In part, it’s because negative stories that probably wouldn’t have come out had they stayed off the political radar are now more likely to emerge. The latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist Poll bears out how uncomfortable Democrats are with a wealthy self-funding candidate possibly leading their ticket. When asked what type of candidate they'd be most excited about as a presidential candidate, a majority of Republicans said a business executive. Among Democrats, that choice was near the bottom. The American public’s mounting frustration with this corrupt system has, in part, led to the rise of populist candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Now has to welcome Bloomberg and Steyer on the ticket . American political system is no longer a democracy but rather a plutocracy. 








NOTES AND COMMENTS:
(1)>>So why then are so many billionaires running for president in the 2020 cycle. Compared to the professional presidential candidates who have achieved maximum political socialization by running for city councils, working in state legislatures or other governments, or serving in Congress, the billionaire candidate stands as a loner, somebody who has gotten good at balancing at the top of the hierarchy and barking orders to underlings.The U.S. has also long passed the point at which it was a democracy, since the DNC and the intelligence agencies are proving with this "resistance" and "impeachment" that our elections do not matter anymore.  Meanwhile, the neolibs/neocons continue to pump unlimited funds into the foreign empire and the domestic patronage (aka our massively overleveraged welfare state).  I wonder how long the U.S. has.  We desperately need bad times to produce strong people, as the gravy train of good times has run for far too long on borrowed time and has produced the weakest people imaginable.  Billionaire or not, the politicians and leaders we need really have to start leveling with the American public, and folks need to stop with the magical thinking that somehow we can escape all of the bad times that lay ahead. (1.2)>>Tom Steyer. Steyer, meanwhile, has attracted attention spending millions on a campaign to impeach the president. The former hedge fund manager – who’s said he’ll decide on a White House run early in the new year – kicked off a town hall tour this month in South Carolina, the first southern state to vote in the primary and caucus calendar. That tour will also bring him to New Hampshire, Iowa and Nevada, other early-voting states. Steyer has also built up a vast email distribution list through his “Need to impeach” drive and NextGenAmerica, the grassroots advocacy organization he created five years ago. In an announcement video, he talked about how corporations have “bought our democracy” and “we’re trying to make democracy work by pushing power down to the people.” His policy positions have much in common with those of Sanders and of Warren, who he’s spoken positively of — but he’s still decided to run against both of them.  (2)>>Mike Bloomberg. Is already bombarding the airwaves with his commercials, for a guy who has not participating in a public debate is rather troubling , and arrogant by standards . Mike Bloomberg is throwing another $9.5 million into television ads in select competitive districts to boost his presidential run — less than a week after purchasing $30 million in spots to launch the long-shot 2020 bid.  A CNBC analysis of data provided by Advertising Analytics found that Bloomberg has put $13.2 million of those dollars to work on television ads across the 14 Super Tuesday states. That sum is more than any other candidate’s total spend for the primary so far, and is nearly as much as the rest of the field combined. In the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, on the other hand, Bloomberg has spent only $21,480, less than any other candidate and a mere 0.06% of his total TV spend across the country. (2.1)>>The myth of the political outsider has given raise to these ultra rich wannabes . A candidate like Trump, an "outsider", came to the forefront because voters were sick of Democrats and Republicans doing nothing for them and doing everything for corporations and for the most wealthy. Steyer, an "outsider", comes to forefront because voters and most Democratic voters specifically are sick of Democratic "leadership" doing nothing.The Democratic Party is especially vulnerable for failing to bring impeachment charges against Trump after running on "hold Trump accountable". People are still in love with the "run government like a business" trope that has been proven, time and again, to not be a magic bullet. I thought the GWB administration would, once and for all, lay to rest the BS notion of a CEO president. Nope. Along comes the worst businessman and biggest con man in America to win over a swath of people for reasons that still escape me. In theory, any American citizen meeting the specified qualifications for office can become President. This is a good thing, and wealth, or lack of it, should not in itself impede anyone's access to the office. Not all millionaires and billionaires are made equally: some are ethical, humane, and philanthropic, while others are selfish, entitled, and mean (for example, see Donald John Trump). A very wealthy person can be an effective, even exemplary President, should they enter office with enough humility to learn what they did not know going in, and exercise their powers with sincere intent to serve the public good. I believe Steyer would do all those things were he to gain any office of public trust, quite unlike the current President. I do believe it is fallacious to try to govern the country as if it were a business. The country was not set up as such, and discrete monetary profit is not the goal of the unfolding of the republic and its affairs. But one need not be a very wealthy individual to make this mistake, and a very wealthy person will not necessarily regard the nation as if it were a business.  (3)>>His Cabinet of millionaires and billionaires is the richest in American history. That Trump has a predilection for the super-rich in his inner circle is hardly a secret. Even though he denounced the oppressive power of Wall Street during the campaign, he has chosen many of its leading figures to serve by his side. Among the billionaires and multimillionaires in his cabinet are Betsy DeVos (estimated family net worth: $5.6 billion) as education secretary, Wilbur Ross ($2.5 billion) as commerce secretary, Steve Mnuchin ($500 million) as Treasury secretary, and Rex Tillerson ($325 million) as secretary of state. Trump has also scoured the executive ranks of the banking giant Goldman Sachs for many of his senior advisers, including Gary Cohn as his top economic adviser and Dina Powell as a special adviser on economic initiatives. (4)>>The 2020 election was already slated to be a record-breaking political advertising event.  I find also Ironic while these wealthy American oligarchs have money to self sustain a campaign but the The New York Times published a terrifying study on how just 158 wealthy families have provided nearly 50 percent of the funds raised for presidential candidates with their eye on the White House. They were mostly white, rich, older, and male, and hailed from the finance and energy sectors.