Blog powered by Typepad

« Murmur who dares! | Main | The American 'Speccie' spots a winner! »

Thursday, 21 November 2019


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

America is in the shape it's in for two reasons: 1) The post-war boom ended some time in the late 1970's. 2) For the most part Washington DC Republicans mutated from a business party into a sham party that's only a PR firm for money interests. It would be nice if more like Hawley come to their senses, but don't hold your breath. Most of them are shamelessly defending everything Trump does. Policy doesn't matter anymore. The general good of America doesn't matter anymore. They don't know how to do anything but make the sale they're paid to make.

This is D&N blog. Not Carpenter's blog.

I know Hawley. Born about 130 or so miles west of me, I expect Whitewall knows where Springdale is? He was the attorney general of the state just north of me. Beat the pants off ex-Senator Claire McCaskill er, in an electoral sense.

He's friends with the guy I sent that letter I mentioned back before Trump decided Deir ez Zoir (Syria) would be a good place to hold, Senator Tom Cotton.

Bob, as usual, is full of shit.

And Jeffery Epstein didn't commit suicide.

JK, I know it well...or knew it since it has been a long time. I used to over fly all the way to Tulsa and then pick up a car to drive back.


You don't know shit from Shinola. The Republicans are still mouthing GRU talking points like Ukraine being the country that really hacked the DNC and has a server that can prove it. It's a preposterous conspiracy theory being used to sell the idea Trump was fighting corruption in Ukraine. It benefits Russia by taking pressure off them and putting it on a country they want to dominate. Trump's and Putin's interests line up, and Trump cares only about himself. It's a shame so many Republicans toe his line.

The Tories have also cuddled up to the Russians:

Brexit was influenced by a Russia-instigated program to discredit Britain in the opinion of Americans and drive a wedge.

You like to pretend you're in on secret intelligence. This stuff isn't even secret anymore. Trump might be in the same soup as his pal Netanyahu.

On any blog the truth is still the truth.


Details. It's the details of "the hack" (such as it apparently was) where there's details still in dispute - the DNC emails bit of it at any rate. The metadata indicates a memory stick being the method and a direct download being the means. If you'll take the time to dig into the details of "all intelligence agencies [US] agree" on that report issued back before the inauguration you'll find it wasn't the 17 agencies as our media would have it rather it was just 3 - CIA, FBI, and NSA with only the first two signing off with "high confidence" the last, the Signals Department (or nowadays as we throw it around; NSA) hedged and only gave the report's conclusion a 50-50, which in layman's terms is 'moderate confidence' - as Admiral Rogers pointed out.

The GRU and the FSB no doubt doing some ad-buys on social media but on a campaign upon which the DNC and associates spent close to a $billion on ad-buys and other media and the RNC and associates spending just south of that the verified $100,000 The Russians! The Russians! The Russians! spent just how much "influence" they actually bought remains in dispute. Especially as the ads were 'targeted ads' and the focus of the ads directed to just 3 markets - St Louis, Baltimore, and one other place which now eludes me.

Still "the report's conclusions" as to the Russians' achievement being as it was the reported "goal" being to "sow discord" as opposed to "changing actual results" I would agree the Russians succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. ... Yes I remember some media reports reporting a couple precincts in Florida being "intruded" but as you'll maybe remember when Florida's now Secretary of State (the state-level official being responsible for elections matters) requested the Bureau investigate "which ones?" Well the media hasn't gotten around, even now, to reporting on how that investigation worked out.

So far as Ukraine elections shenanigans goes I'll stipulate reserving the option to point out no less than the New York Times, Politico, and The Washington Post among others ran reports (as well the NYT carrying an actual op-ed authored by the then Ukraine Foreign Minister) detailing "meddling" pre-election day 2016.

Remember Assange Bob? You heard any of the evidence presented against him in an actual US Courts' proceeding? Nope me either. But I'm sure we'll agree on where the stuff that got Manafort his rent payments for US Federal custody happened and that would be, come on Bob let's shout it in unison Ukraine! At least middling interesting that wouldn't you agree Bob? You know what else maybe interesting where Ukraine's concerned Bob?

Scroll down to page 2 of that Bob - Notice the email From: Victoria Nuland with among others on the "To" line one Eric Ciaramella?

You recall back a couple of Ukraine cycles past a duly elected President of Ukraine getting run out of town on a rail? You remember what the circumstances were leading up to stuff?

I'll give you a hint Bob - Maidan.

Was either Trump or Guiliani running around Kyiv when all the hijinks surrounding the events around Maidan were happening Bob? Nope Bob to keep you from straining your brain Rudy and Donnie boy were no where around but guess who was - that's right Bob a horde of US State Department "Patriots" including a certain 'Point Man' who'd just, 'Son of a bitch' got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

No Bob you're wrong about my 'pretending' - you can get in the archives yourself on this here D&N site and find for yourself where I've pointed out my giving up my clearances myself a number of years ago. As well you'll find my explaining everything I depend on is open-sourced and the reasons for that. Good reasons too I might add - keeps me from running afoul of the authorities for some of the stuff I've posted on this here public access blog David runs.

I wouldn't want to be Manafort's roomie.

You're avoiding my point, JK:

"Peddling ‘fictions’

Hill publicly rebutted a Republican narrative that Ukraine intervened in the 2016 elections while reasserting that Russia has and continues to meddle in U.S. politics.

Hill’s comments directly challenged defenses made by Republican members of the panel who have grasped for debunked conspiracy theories throughout the proceedings."

Not all, but most of the congressional Republicans are lying their asses off for Trump. Lindsey Graham plans to run an "investigation" into the fictional Ukrainian hacking. It's time those guys sober up.

"Lindsey Graham plans to run an "investigation" into the fictional Ukrainian hacking."

For what it's worth Bob the only witness transcript I've read (didn't watch any of the Schiff Show) is Vindman's - so far as I've been concerned, until rebut is a feature nothing is pertinent.

So. So far as Graham's "investigation" goes, I don't care. I'm sick of teeveed "investigations." Likewise this most recent leak.

My DC representatives have all been notified of my preference and that's for a trial - in the Senate. Schiff's indicted his ham sandwich now let's see him (or whoever will be his Senate counterpart) try his case. It's the American Way Bob - due process.

I should've Bob, foregone my above and just searched for something I figured would likely be there if I looked. And sure enough:

Fully cognizant Bob that, being as you're likely socked in 'cause of weather conditions or somesuch you're just needing sumpin' to occupy your time. Look some're's else Bob, there's some glass shards I need to find to add to my oatmeal.

Well it would appear Typepad prefers not posting links from a dot mil site - Apologies all.

As I attempted to note previously


It would appear you side has about the same awareness of the perils of warfare generally as you do assault weapons specifically:

"NOTE: This story has been updated. Alexander Vindman received a Purple Heart after being wounded by an IED, or improvised explosive device, not an IUD, or intrauterine device. We regret the error."

I'm rather happy now Bob you didn't link directly to Miss Hill's Intel Committee testimony else I'd missed that.


The Republicans' attacks on Vindman, Intel officials and career diplomats are disgusting. Apparently they can't argue the facts.

We agree on the Senate trial. John Roberts will have a lot of power over the proceedings and won't likely let McConnell railroad it. That alone should make things interesting.

Oh I dunno Bob, though I haven't been paying much attention to the primetime coverage of the last two weeks so can't put forth much on Vindman (except to mention what I got from the teeveed transcript where he apparently, took exception to being called "Mister" which tends me to think he's something of a twerp)

Far as the attacks on various of the Intel and the FSOs go - the higher-ups at any rate, seems to me that's scorn well earned.

And now I've read some of what Graham had to say about "investigation" I think he may've been referring to whatever Horowitz is gonna be releasing. Really don't think he's interested at all about doing an investigation of his own - there's Judges to be confirmed.


Vindman has a Purple Heart as well as a distinguished record in the military and government. You can look it up unless you just want to think of him as a twerp. Graham's "investigation" is into the Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine, essentially into conspiracy theories that have already been debunked. You can look that up too, though the right wing media don't seem to mention it, they'll probably have to eventually.

Btw, I doubt Trump will be held accountable. Partisanship over all!, ya know.

"Held to account" Bob? Schiff's self described "Grand Jury" ham sandwich indicting sham show trial's or a proper trial where there's such niceties as countering statements, exculpatory statements, opposing witnesses, supporting witnesses, and especially the feature which in layman's terms is generally known as the Objection?

Examples of which include:

"Calls for speculation."

"Theory based on facts not in evidence."

"Is the witness familiar with Exhibits : ad sum and so on?"

"Witness' present statement contradicts/is not supported by earlier statements."

"Upon what evidence does the witness base : conjecture/mind reading?"

And so on.

Well Bob I guess I'll have to admit to being wrong about any "new" investigation being initiated.

That sure looks like "laying the foundation" to me.

(Be an interesting situation should a former administration seek to claim "Executive Privilege" or, perhaps more likely, refuse to comply.)


Hope springs eternal.

Btw, it's unlikely Trump will be removed from office. The case against him is clear, but whether it rises to a "high crime" or "misdemeanor" is open to debate. Republicans have already chosen what they'll debate, and they run the Senate.

Bob yeah hope.

Appears to me though while you're likely correct where a 'process removed' is concerned the "is clear" ain't - while it isn't likely an unbiased jury could realistically be found even if one could I don't see any honest return being other than hung - and the particular disagreements - manifold; I'd still like seeing a full on trial. (Preferably held on say, Mars so when the Congress riot starts we down here on Earth could just remotely open the airlocks and start over with a whole new bunch of politicians. And the 'vested media' covering likewise.)

Running my schedule through at 0800 Chris Wallace, 0900 MTP/0930 switching between MTP and CBS' Face The Nation, 1000 switching between Fox' Media Buzz & CNN's Reliable Sources (admittedly as I can't hardly stand that slug Brian Stelter ...) 1100 Jake Tapper, 1200 Fareed Zakaria, and winding up at 1300 on PBS' Washington Week it seems plain to me the Republicans ain't the only ones already chosed.

Eh, Bob?

Immediately above you claim, "The case against him is clear."

Consider Turley a Republican? Watch the five minute clip:

(Incidentally, on this morning's Face the Nation Schiff seemed quite reluctant to say he'd take any of his stuff to the Courts .. Care to offer an opinion as to why that may be? Before you do however consider this one small thing, regarding impeachment the Constitution's clear language places the full jurisdiction in the hands of Congress. And Congress alone. Reckon Schiff recognizes that'd be a bridge too far?)


I saw Turley on CBSN some time ago making his argument, which seems valid to me. They've also featured some conservative Federalist Society lawyers who made a case Trump must be impeached and removed from office. That also seemed valid. There are plenty of lawyers to go around, but I am not one. Schiff isn't going to court with the ignored subpoenas because they could drag through the system past the election.

I'll repeat: I don't think Trump will be removed as of now. In fact, the whole impeachment effort could backfire on Democrats. We'll just have to see how things turn out.


The comments to this entry are closed.