Showing posts with label Ukraine extortion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ukraine extortion. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 28, 2020

Yes- If Repuke Senators Ignore Bolton's Revelations & Acquit Trump They Are Guilty Of Treason Too




Image may contain: 4 people, possible text that says 'YOU ARE A TRAITOR IF YOU PROTECT A TRAITOR'

"The idea that the Democrats, not Mr. Trump’s campaign staffers, conspired with foreign operatives is more than “conspiracy theory.” It is a fascist ploy to turn lies into truth. This is why I said recently that Mr. Trump’s crime is so much worse than abuse of power. It’s treason."  - John Stoehr, ('When Does Ordinary Republican Partisanship Become Treason' ,   The Baltimore Sun)

Barely hours before former national security adviser  John Bolton released blockbuster contents on Trump's quid pro quo vis -a -vis the Ukraine (in his soon to be published book) the orange maggot traitor tweeted this about Adam Schiff Sunday:

"Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price yet for what he has done to our country!"

Schiff, appearing on 'Meet the Press' Sunday correctly interpreted this as a threat.  Of course,  given Trump consistently projects his own vile attributes onto others (mainly critics, Dems)  his tweet must be reversed to read  i.e. 

"I, Donald Trump am a CORRUPT POLITICIAN (and TRAITOR!) and am a very sick man.  I have also not yet paid the price for what I have done and am doing to this country!"

But will this human vermin pay? As the Senate trial winds on, in the midst of the criminal resident bragging openly about obstruction, e.g.
and two days earlier, caught on a video bellowing "Take her out!" - referring to Marie Yovanovitch - barking the order to henchman  Lev Parnas .  e.g.




There is more than ample evidence to hold this swine to account, and even hang him as the traitor he is, especially after Bolton's revelations, namely that Trump wanted to continue freezing nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until it helped to investigate the Bidens.

  See e.g.


This directly contradicts what the Traitor's defense team has been arguing, i.e. that "there is no connection between security assistance and investigations."    They peddled this bunkum yesterday along with the Kremlin -generated codswallop (by Trump stooge Pam Bondi) that Ukraine was the real culprit in 2016, in conjunction with Burisma & the Bidens.  Then there was the addle-pated Alan Dershowitz again repeating the canard that impeachment required an actual violation of a federal criminal statute. (Never mind none were even written at the time the Founders inserted the impeachment clause).

   But now, with John Bolton's material ("like a grenade exploding" according to one pundit)  Trump and his team of liars...errr, lawyers,  are boxed into a corner.   (Trump of course denies he told Bolton anything about withholding aid, but we already know this orange Orang lies like he breathes.)  At the very least, Bolton's ms. confirms all we've seen and heard from earlier House inquiry witnesses, like Fiona Hill and Gordon Sondland.  That means the decision of whether to allow Bolton as a witness puts the Repuke Senators on trial along with the traitor.    Got nothing to hide? Then demand Bolton appear as a witness! 

If they refuse to allow Bolton to appear as a witness - at least - far less remove their criminal traitor Overlord,  then yes, they are also traitors. They can be nothing less. Especially in the guise of Trump's derelict lawyers now accusing Democrats of "trying to overturn the 2016 election" - echoing the orange pestilence himself.

Of course, today's  WSJ editorial ('John Bolton's Report', p. A16) insists the Bolton revelation being a "bombshell" is mere "media hype."  Also, if Trump did do it there's still no impeachable offense given "Ukraine never opened an investigation and the U.S.  aid was delivered on time."  Failing to grasp, as usual, that an attempted crime is still a crime.  If Mr. X attempts to embezzle $1m from his company then changes his mind midway through, he's still committed a crime and can be locked up for years.   So the WSJ's "arguments" - like those of Trump's stooge lawyers- amount to balderdash and bare bollocks.



Here's the bottom line: If their guy has nothing to hide, and they themselves want the full evidence they've been claiming the House Dems didn't provide- they have no choice other than to call Bolton to testify.  If they do not, they are in the same cover up, stone wall and obstruction mode as their master.

 One must then ask, if these Trump cultists punt,  if the 'Grand Old Party'  has transitioned from hyper -partisanship to treason.  A recent Baltimore Sun article  ('When Does Ordinary Republican Partisanship Become Treason' by John Stoehr), argues this has been done, e.g.

https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/op-ed/bs-ed-op-1205-treason-republicans-trump-20191204-b4r43waqcfbtfe7hhjfgjcsixu-story.html


Let's go through Stoehr's essay and assess how close he is to the truth in his assertion. He writes:

"It bears repeating: Donald Trump was not only press-ganging Volodymyr Zelensky in an illegal scheme for partisan gain. He was rewriting the history of 2016 in order to wound enemies (Democrats) and help friends (Vladimir Putin) — as well as to give Kremlin operatives room to strike again. It is in no way overstating the case to say the president of the United States is the head of an international conspiracy to defraud the American people. "

There should be no issue on this, period. We have the evidence, the documents and Trump himself threatening  and even bragging about his alliance with Putin in a criminal conspiracy. 

If anyone is into valid conspiracies (like the one behind the JFK assassination)  this is indeed the one to accept because it is closest to the truth of all the ones out there right now.  We know  the Trump team had  more than 100 meetings - that we know of -  with Russians, including GRU intelligence agents.  Specifically in "Trump and His Associates Had More Than 100 Contacts With Russians Before the Inauguration,"   The NY Times tracked down "more than 100 in-person meetings, phone calls, text messages, emails and private messages on Twitter," all made by "at least 17 campaign officials and advisers [who] had contacts with Russian nationals and WikiLeaks, or their intermediaries."


Robert Mueller not only defined a conspiracy in the case of an indictment filed against 12 GRU agents in 2018, but made it public, E.g.   


Mueller  also - if you read part one of his report-  made it clear Trump was involved in this  conspiracy.  As Harvard Law Professor Lawrence Tribe elegantly summed up earlier this year ('Last Word' with Lawrence O'Donnell):

"What we have here is a situation where the Mueller report shows without any doubt that a hostile foreign power attacked the United States in this (2016) election.  That Donald Trump welcomed that attack, benefited from it and then - the last couple of years - tried to cover it up every possible way. "

Text messages, phone records, foreign intercepts, emails  - other documentation of the meetings, e.g. of Carter Page-   point to clear conspiracy with the Russkies to alter  the 2016 election. 

Even more explicit is the take from Mimi Rocah, former federal prosecutor, appearing January 25th last year on 'All In':

"There's just so many facts in this indictment about the coordination of the Trump campaign with Wikileaks, through Roger Stone. Remember that GRU indictment - if you go back to that- one of the objects of the conspiracy is not just hacking but hacking and disseminating.  You can't look at them alone, you have to go back to everything we know, the Trump Tower meeting, the calling out by Trump to Russia (to grab Hillary's emails)...there's just so many other things."

A de facto conspiracy by any other name. Then there are Traitor Trump's own words to hang him,  e.g.

"I will tell you this, Russia if you're listening, I hope that you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. You will probably be rewarded mightily by our press. Let's see if that happens."


The very next day the Russkies hacked the DNC - and the traitor 'Pukes have the nerve to try to lay the 2016 election interference on the Ukraine.  Worse, to invoke the Ukraine- Crowdstrike- Burisma nonsense to try to deflect attention and get Trump acquitted.

 Stoehr again:

"It has remained to be seen how far the Republican Party is willing to go in defense of Mr. Trump’s conspiracy. But now, as the impeachment process enters a new and dangerous phase, we are seeing new GOP behavior, though we have witnessed plenty of hints. One reporter wrote recently that Republicans decided the best way to defend the president is to embrace “the claim" of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. Let’s be clear. 

There was no Ukrainian interference. That’s according to the special counsel’s report, which cited one and a half dozen national security agencies. That’s according to the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report. That’s according to every career official in the State Department who testified under oath last month.The idea that Ukraine, not Russia, attacked the U.S. originated in the Kremlin."


Indeed, this specious - already debunked narrative -  claiming it was Ukrainians who meddled in the 2016 election instead of the Russians- was  totally refuted by Dr. Fiona Hill in her House Impeachment hearings appearance, e.g.

Fiona Hill Schools Russian-Bought Reepos To Disda...

In her own words, from my Nov. 22nd post:

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.”


Further, an intel report released the next day (and issued to the Republicans as well ) noted the Ukraine - CrowdStrike BS was being peddled by Putin and the Russians to frame Ukraine.  But the Reptiles have continued to invoke it because they are traitors first and sowers of  propaganda and lies second.  Fifth columnists who consistently place party and obeisance to Trump,  over country. Recall also Traitor Trump's lies at the time,  issued in a tweet, e.g.

"The F.B.I. went in, and they told them, ‘Get out of here, we’re not giving it to you,’ They gave the server to CrowdStrike, or whatever it is called, which is a company owned by a very wealthy Ukrainian. I still want to see that server.”

Hell, even Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocey (two of the FOX 'n Friends trio) had their mouths agape. Kilmeade - once he caught his breath - even had the sense to ask the Traitor- in -chief for his sources.  All he could do was bark 50 more minutes of lies. 

Mr. Stoehr again:

"The idea that the Democrats, not Mr. Trump’s campaign staffers, conspired with foreign operatives is more than “conspiracy theory.” It is a fascist ploy to turn lies into truth. This is why I said recently that Mr. Trump’s crime is so much worse than abuse of power. It’s treason. And the Republicans, like lemmings, are heading for a cliff. "

Indeed, these rats are headed over a cliff, and with a huge grenade (the Bolton disclosures) in their sorry paws as well.  Set to blow up just as they vote to acquit Herr Hitler Jr.  And as I noted earlier it was  the Trump team that had  more than 100 meetings with GRU agents. It is the Reepo-Trump alliance who are the traitors and attempting to overthrow the nation's founding principles and Constitution and replace them with a hostile, alien authoritarian fascist stamp.   Once more we learn from Mr. Stoehr:

"It’s quite another thing, however, to know what you’re doing is wrong and do it anyway. The Republicans can’t not know. First, because intelligence officials briefed Senate Republicans, telling them explicitly the Ukraine-attacked-us story is pure Putin disinformation. Second, because Fiona Hill, a former member of the White House National Security Council, and a Russia authority, was clear about what House Republicans were already doing. She said: 

“In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests. I refuse to be part of an effort to legitimize an alternate narrative that the Ukrainian government is a U.S. adversary, and that Ukraine — not Russia — attacked us in 2016.”

 Again, repeating what I wrote earlier in regard to Dr. Hill's House testimony.  And now the coup de grace:
"And now we have another reason why the Republicans can’t not know they are participating in a conspiracy to defraud the American people. Rudy Giuliani, who is not regarded for his discretion, confessed to knowing the Ukraine-attacked-us story was bunk. Not only that, the president’s personal attorney actually said he decided to pursue “evidence” of Ukraine’s attack in order to undercut Robert Mueller’s report.

Is that where the Republicans want to go? Well, yes, if Tucker Carlson is any indication. The Fox News host is on the bleeding edge of attempts by Trump partisans to expand what the American people think is acceptable behavior. On his show recently he said: “I’m totally opposed to these [US] sanctions [on Russia] and I don’t think we should be at war with Russia and I think we should take the side of Russia if we have to choose between Russia and Ukraine.” He went on to say the Democrats hate America more than Vladimir Putin does.   At some point, we must face what it means for Republicans to know the truth but to advance Kremlin lies anyway, even when doing so slowly burns down the republic.

At some point soon, we must stop calling them dupes, and start calling them the enemy."

So by carrying water for the already discredited GRU, Putin and their conspiracy codswallop - like the Senate Reeps plan to do (unless they prove otherwise) -   we can declare  they are indeed the enemy.  Worse, all these misfits who swore to protect and defend the Constitution against "all enemies foreign and domestic"  are de facto traitors. 
   
They are openly using debunked material from a hostile foreign security service to undermine our Republic and indeed to destroy it. Thus, each specious argument made by Trump's lawyers to protect him  - and the Republican party - amounts to one more nail in their treasonous coffins.  The people,  representing the court of final appeal (guided by the Constitution) - will make their final verdict known in November.  Unlike the GOP's cowardly Senators they will oust all these Reepo snakes:  from the presidency, and the Senate.  Giving us a chance to disinfect both from the pestilence that's nearly destroyed them - and our nation.

See also:

Goldberg: Trump’s defenders have adopted a doctrine of infallibility »



And:

Thursday, January 16, 2020

The Senate Trial Opens - And The Solemnity and Historical Significance Should Ensure No Circus Erupts


Impeachment managers walk the articles over to the Senate yesterday


"This whole thing stinks.  It's exactly why you need to have live witnesses and a real trial. If you're a Senate Republican right now, I don't care how conservative you are and how much you love this president, you've got to love this country more. The truth has to come out, that's what the American way is."  - Former acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal last night on 'Last Word'.

Following  yesterday's 228-to-193 vote to adopt the two articles of impeachment and appoint the House impeachment managers (primary litigators) the stage is now set for one of the more polarizing events in the past fifty years. One which will, ultimately, determine whether we are a nation of laws and justice, or renegade scofflaws.  A nation in which we have a government defined by checks and balances, or a de facto monarchy.  If the words and messaging of Mitch McConnell are to be believed the latter is the case, but that is still to play out in the next few weeks with this Senate trial.

 The solemn procession of the trial managers came almost one month after the House impeached Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, formally accusing him of seeking foreign election assistance from Ukraine and then trying to conceal his actions from a House inquiry. Only one Democrat, Representative Collin C. Peterson of Minnesota, joined every Republican in voting “no.”    This cowardice alone is mystifying given the emergence of a trove of new documents related to Trump’s pressure campaign.   These have  played directly into Democrats’ arguments that any trial must include new witnesses and evidence.  The material includes messages between Giuliani "henchman" Lev  Parnas and a reprobate named Robert Hyde - currently running for a GOP congressional seat in Connecticut.

Parnas, a businessman and Republican donor indicted for campaign finance violations, claimed last night in an interview with MSNBCs Rachel Maddow, that: "Trump “knew exactly what was going on” in a scheme to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate Joe Biden, according to an associate of the president’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani."

On behalf of Giuliani, Parnas said he told a Ukrainian official that unless the administration announced an intention to investigate the Bidens, Mike Pence would not attend the Zelenskiy’s inauguration. The next day, “to my awareness”, said Parnas, Trump called to inform Ukrainian officials that Pence would cancel his trip to Ukraine.

Parnas also said other members of the Trump administration knew about the Ukraine pressure campaign. He said William Barr, the attorney general, “was basically on the team”. And the former national security adviser John Bolton, who recently indicated he would testify in the Senate impeachment trial if he was subpoenaed, also “100%” knew about the scheme, Parnas said.   Also in up to his ears was a Trumpster rat named Robert Hyde who's job was evidently keeping Parnas and his then overseer - a corrupt former Ukrainian prosecutor named Yuriy  Lutsenko -  in the loop on getting rid of then U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovonavitch,


Hyde's stalking of Yovonavitch, from the documented messages released, included the following:  

"She's next to the embassy. They'll let me know when she's on the move."

  "They're willing to help if we/you would like a price"    

"Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money."

Hyde's messaging warrants further scrutiny at the very least, which means dragging him into questioning in a Senate trial.  To ignore the documented material on the basis of "he's blowing off steam" or "it's all beer talk" would be a failure of responsibility on a level with the Warren Commission's omission of dozens of equally unsavory first hand witnesses. (Though again, the WC was not an official gov't investigation but a creation of LBJ, to cover his own hide.) 

What we now know is that the Internal Affairs Ministry of Ukraine is taking Hyde's stalking and surveillance seriously.  According to the NY Times, the Ministry said in a statement released this a.m.  that “the published messages contain facts of possible violations of Ukrainian law and of the Vienna Convention on diplomatic relations, which protect the rights of diplomats on the territory of another state.”

And further , Ukraine “cannot ignore such illegal activities” on its territory, the statement said, adding that the national police had started criminal proceedings after analyzing the new material.    It is also of interest to note that Ukraine said it had asked the F.B.I. for help investigating the reported penetration of computer systems belonging to Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, by hackers working for Russian intelligence.  This is the same lot for whom most of the Reep Senators will be working, if they buy into the "Ukraine did it" bollocks. (And actually try to get Hunter Biden as a witness, as the moron Rand Paul vowed, i.e. if Dems are granted their (real) witnesses.)

Anyway, the trial is  now set to begin with the reading of the articles, charges today and in earnest by next Tuesday. Today also  Chief Justice John G. Roberts will be sworn in to preside and all Senators will take an oath to administer “impartial justice.”.   That means the Repuke Senators cannot have already found Trump "not guilty" or attempted an instant dismissal.  That would be a cover- up in plain sight, and merit naming this a sham trial.  As Jerrold Nadler put it: "The Senate is on trial here too."  Indeed it is. 

Following Roberts summoning the Senate must then promptly issue a summons to Trump,  informing him of the charges and requesting a response.  Already we know the orange maggot is losing it as he keeps up his screeching episodes in front of WH aides, in between tweeting "This is a hoax!" and watching his bosom buddies on Fox and Friends.

OK,  to revisit reality, we know this POS resident will most likely be acquitted no matter how the trial plays out, or for how long.

  In that event, we also can be sure such a pestilence as Donald J. Trump is almost certain to use his likely acquittal in the Republican-controlled Senate as a complete exoneration and turn the considerable apparatus of his campaign to stoking public outrage over the process.  

This is where the rubber hits the road, and then becomes the test of whether we have a court of final appeal residing in the American public, i.e. its willingness to vote this criminal out of office, given his own party refuses to honor its constitutional duty. It will take immense fortitude and clarity of mind, as well as supreme self-regulation not to be buffeted and succumb to the  torrent of lies, disinformation and propaganda. (Former Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul warned last night of a wave of disinformation sown by Russian bots during the Senate trial - all with the intent to mindfuck millions.)

Let's get into our heads that Trump's behavior is not just abnormal.  No, it instead marks the epitome of corruption.  That is,  a person given public power to act for the people but who then takes that and uses it for his own selfish, private gain.  Most constitutional scholars - not the dopey "Federalist Society" idiots-  grasped that the Founders took corruption most seriously. Indeed, it was central to the founding of this country.  After the decision to become these 'United States' the next question was how do we protect against corruption. 

A quarter of the time, at the Constitutional Convention, the Framers were all about corruption in sundry aspects:  the treaty power, the size of districts, the Electoral College.  Everything was debated in terms of how do we protect against corruption.  Inherent to this, implicitly understood was the danger of Republics, or their potential weakness.

That is, they could become corrupted if a corrupt politician or demagogue - especially one with an energetic minority (or majority) backing, somehow was elected.  Thus, the framers were less afraid of external threats than internal threats of corruption.   One of the Founders and Framers most aware of this was George Mason. Who, at the Constitutional Convention, said the following:

"Shall the man who has practiced corruption, and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment by repeating his guilt?"

In other words, should an unfit swine like Donald Trump, who's already escaped accountability in the Mueller investigation, be now allowed to once more use bribery of a foreign power to get re-relected, and thereby escape his just punishment?

Thus, Mason was aware that it's not just the corruption he was worried about (as well as other Founders, like James Madison) but also if such man becomes corrupt enough that he can corrupt the electoral process itself, to get into power again- and escape all sanction.

The Mason quote, interestingly, came in the midst of the Framers' debate about impeachment. The original drafts for the impeachment provision  were more concerned with malpractice or the neglect of duty. But Mason and others were so worried about corruption that they insisted the provisions include bribery, treason and maladministration. 

They then decided the last was too broad and ambiguous so it was taken out an replaced with "high crimes and misdemeanors" -  which had a very precise meaning at that time (i.e. in the English tradition).  For reference, the three major proponents of the impeachment power were: Edmund Jennings Randolph, Mason and James Madison.

Each talked not only about corruption but foreign corruption, i.e. the unique dangers  of an executive have powers in the foreign realm. Randolph, for example,  was worried about an executive becoming corrupted in matters of war and peace, because people wouldn't necessarily know about them. Say Trump making a secret deal with Kim Jong Un or Recip Tayyip Erdogan, that was against U.S. security interests.

This is exactly the case with Trump and his Ukraine extortion, and why impeachment - as well as rapid removal from office - is essential.  The codswallop that the whole impeachment process is a "hoax" or "revenge" on poor Dotard  for the 2016 debacle is without any basis. None. Hence, today's Wall Street Journal editorial piffle, (p. A14):

"The Senate can now do better by the Constitution by holding a trial that judges President Trump without validating the partisan House process and its weak case."

Is total, inexcusable and egregious balderdash, but typical of the WSJ's op-ed page propaganda and disinfo.

In fact, the House Dems produced an impeachment inquiry for the ages, calling dozens of high profile witnesses to testify including Fiona Hill, Gordon Sondland, Kurt Volker, David Holmes, Marie Yovonavitch, William Taylor, and many others.  All of them produced devastating direct testimony of Trump's criminal acts, to do with shaking down Volodymyr Zelenskiy to announce an investigation of the Bidens - in return for nearly $400 m of military aid to Ukraine. (Now threatened by the Russians in the Donbass region)

The problem is that if the majority Reeps in the Senate adopt the governing narrative (seeded by the Russian security services) that Ukraine was really the interloper in the 2016 election and Trump was the victim- then we are witness to no more than a kangaroo court with no positive outcome for removing the turd.  Worse, by carrying water for the already discredited GRU and their conspiracy codswallop - like Lindsey Graham plans to do to use against the Bidens - we can declare that all these miscreants are de facto traitors. They are openly using debunked material from a foreign security service to undermine our Republic, and indeed, to destroy it.

Yes, it is true as one commenter said this morning,  that they are acting to protect themselves from being primaried - thanks to Trump's hold on his dumb base. But that is putting one's job and party before country. Another form of treason, and at the very least a violation of one's Senatorial oath to protect and defend the Constitution.   Not Donald J. Trump.

Given the above,  all eyes will be watching  - to the extent they are able (given Moscow Mitch plans to control media-press access in the Chamber). Still, the final verdict on the Repubs may well marginalize them forever as a national party.   See e.g.


Indeed, numerous commentators have already referred to the solemnity and gravitas of the occasion of this trial with a Supreme Court Chief Justice presiding.  At the very least this ought to inspire a seriousness of purpose that was absent in the carnival -like House hearings - with assorted Reepo buffoons  (like Doug Collins and Jim Jordan) acting like the clowns they are.

See also:

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

More Reasons Why The U.S. Media Is Incompetent In Covering Trump, Impeachment, Or The Republicans

Other takes on why the press isn't up to the job of covering the impeachment, Trump or the Repugs:

Media


Excerpt:

With Donald Trump becoming the first American president to be impeached in his first term, while holed up in the White House tweeting endless attacks around the clock like some internet troll, 2019 should have been the year the Beltway media finally shed its signature timidity and forcefully stood up to him. This should have been the year the press worked up the courage to disband the pointless protocols newsroom had established for covering Trump (he's not a "liar," he's not a "racist"), and simply started telling the hard truths about him. And while there were some welcome flashes of truth-telling, especially surrounding the Ukraine scandal and impeachment, for the most part the D.C. press still hasn't signaled that's it's ready, or willing, to take the necessary steps needed to cover Trump.

There continues to be a collective reluctance to grapple with today's difficult reality. Unfamiliar with covering authoritarian regimes or how to respond to them, many news outlets remain committed to treating Trump's spectacle as a reality TV show.




Excerpt:

So much has been written about Donald Trump’s debasement of rhetorical norms and his gleeful contempt for truth that there is no need to cite examples or quote studies that count the profligacy of his lies. Trump’s attacks on journalists—“fake news,” mocking a disabled reporter’s body movements—are contemptible. They undermine citizens’ trust in news media, a serious menace to democracy and civil society.


Less noticed is how major news organizations, incensed by the president’s trolling, have debased themselves to Trump’s moral level. American journalism used to adhere to strict standards. Though impossible to achieve, objectivity was paramount. At bare minimum, reporters were expected to project an appearance of political neutrality.


Truth only derived from facts—verifiable facts. Not conjecture and never wishful thinking. Sources who wanted to be quoted had to go on the record. Anonymous sources could flesh out background but could not be the entire basis for a story.


From the start of Trump’s run for president—before the start—Democratic-leaning media outlets abandoned their own long-cherished standards to declare war on him. Every day during the 2016 campaign The New York Times led its coverage with its forecast of Hillary Clinton’s supposed odds of defeating Trump. Setting aside the fact of the Times’ embarrassing wrongness—the day before Election Day they gave Clinton an 85% chance of winning—it cited odds rather than polls. Maximizing a sense of Clintonian inevitability was intended to demoralize Republicans so they wouldn’t turn out to vote. The two figures might mean the same thing. But 85-15 odds look worse than a 51-49 poll.

It’s downright truthy. And when truthiness goes sideways it makes you look really, really dumb. 51-49 could go either way. 85-15, not so much.


The impeachment battle marks a new low in partisanship among media outlets.



Eric Boehlert's picture
Article Tools E-mail | Print Comments (0)


Excerpt:


Extreme times call for extreme measures, but the Beltway press just isn't willing to make that move in the Trump era. As a consequence, the news media fail to accurately capture the radical changes now underway in the country, and how today's Republican Party has become purposefully untethered from reality.



Donald Trump remains a resolutely radical player who has eviscerated decades of protocols and traditions. Yet so much of the press refuses to cover him that way, opting instead to cling to Beltway traditions for how presidents are normally covered (i.e. We can't call him a liar!). But as the high-profile impeachment hearings confirm (along with Trump's recent disastrous and embarrassing trip to the NATO summit), new and bolder language is needed to accurately describe what's transpiring.



Under Trump, we're all in uncharted territories, and that includes the press. We have never had a major political party in this country, for instance, that openly condones seeking help from foreign powers in order to win domestic elections, the way Republicans now do. We've never had a political party that essentially absolves the president of the United States of all crimes and misdemeanors, simply because he has an 'R' next to his name. Meaning: The press has never before faced the challenge of how to cover and describe what was once a mainstream political party but has since evolved into a deeply radical one. For now, much of the news media is simply pretending that historic GOP shift hasn't taken place, and therefore there's no need to dramatically adjust the coverage.

But it has, and there is.

The media's stubborn failure to adjust is now advertised daily. For instance, last week CNN's John King and a roundtable of Beltway pundits expressed complete shock at a new poll that found 53% of Republicans said that Donald Trump is a better president than Abraham Lincoln was. If those pundits had closely followed the radical evolution of the GOP in recent years and been honest with news consumers about its descent into cult worship, there's simply no way they would be utterly bewildered at Republicans' belief today that Trump's a better president than Lincoln. But if you've strained mightily to pretend Democrats and Republicans are mirror opposites of each other and advocate equally mainstream, fact-based positions, than yes, you'd be shocked by the Lincoln finding.

It's the same reason that the percentage share of Republicans who say presidents could operate more effectively if they didn't have to worry about Congress and the courts increased 16 percentage points over the past year, according to the Pew Research Center. 

.......The impeachment saga poses the most obvious challenge for the press as virtually the entire Republican Party now backs absurd lies about Ukraine. "The inchoate and unproved nature of the Republican case against Ukraine has not prevented several GOP leaders from taking up the cause," The Washington Post recently reported, as the paper examined the Republican Party's embrace of the "incendiary conspiracy" that Ukraine worked to try to get Hillary Clinton elected in 2016.


With "inchoate and unproven," the paper clearly tried to convey the sense that Republicans were peddling untruths— without unequivocally stating that Republicans now lie about almost everything, including the garbage Ukraine claim, which has been pushed publicly by Russian President Vladimir Putin. Fact: No U.S. intelligence community report has ever accused Ukraine of interfering in the election. Trump, of course, is accused of using $400 million in United States military assistance to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden.


"Some Republican lawmakers continue to misleadingly say that the government of Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election on the same level as Russia, despite the GOP-led committee looking into the matter and finding little to support the allegation," CNN's Jake Tapper recently wrote. But again, we're not talking about Republicans trying to artfully spin a story in their favor by being "misleading." We're talking about Republican making stuff up, plain and simple. And the press should say so. 




Excerpt:

If journalism is the first draft of history, the press is missing three of the biggest stories of our time. Of course, the Democrats’ inability to articulate anything like a coherent message doesn’t help. Let’s take a look at what they’re missing.


Republicans’ blockade of legislation

Mitch McConnell’s legislative blockade has gotten some attention, although nowhere near as much as it deserves. As of July of this year, the House had sent over 49 major bills, including such popular measures as lowering the cost of prescription drugs, protecting people from being dropped by insurance companies for preexisting conditions, insuring fair elections, requiring background checks for gun purchases, climate legislation – the list is extensive and important. Yet each of these – which are supported by the vast majority of Americans – has been blocked by McConnell and his Republican Senate.


As bad as McConnell’s do-nothing Senate has been, it is only a symptom of a much more serious disease. Specifically, Republicans know little about governing, and care less. This is because they are essentially anti-government.

One of the most dangerous failures of the press is to label as extreme, that which is merely prudent, particularly when the majority of Americans support it. Indeed, one wonders how things like the Green New Deal or Medicare for All or increased taxes on the rich can be called extreme when they are supported by the overwhelming majority of Americans. An extremist position is defined as an outlier – as furthest from the center -- so who, exactly is it that gets to define ideas with 60, 70 or more percent support – the very definition of the center -- as “extreme?”


The answer, of course, is corporations, the rich, and the politicians and mainstream media who are owned in whole or in part, by them.  The absurdity and extremism of America’s “wealth not health” care system is best captured by the reaction of British folks of all stripes when they learn of the costs of that system to real people.

But the press ignores both McConnel’s malfeasance, and the larger issue of a significant portion of the country electing anti-government extremists to …well … govern.


Excerpt:

Anyone who’s been paying attention should get the picture by now. Overall, in subtle and sledgehammer ways, the mass media of the United States—owned and sponsored by corporate giants—are in the midst of a siege against the two progressive Democratic candidates who have a real chance to be elected president in 2020.


Some of the prevalent media bias has taken the form of protracted swoons for numerous "center lane" opponents of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. The recent entry of Michael Bloomberg has further jammed that lane, adding a plutocrat "worth" upwards of $50 billion to a bevy of corporate politicians.


The mainline media are generally quite warm toward so-called "moderates," without bothering to question what's so moderate about such positions as bowing to corporate plunder, backing rampant militarism and refusing to seriously confront the climate emergency.

The disconnect between voters and corporate media is often huge. Meanwhile, with fly-on-the-wall pretenses, media outlets that have powerfully distorted proposals like Medicare for All are now reporting (with thinly veiled satisfaction) that voters are cool to those proposals.

The Washington Post, owned by one of the world's richest people Jeff Bezos, has routinely spun Medicare for All as some sort of government takeover. In a prominent Nov. 30 news story that largely attributed Warren's recent dip in polls to her positioning on healthcare, the Post matter-of-factly—and falsely—referred to Medicare for All as "government-run healthcare" and "a government-run health plan."

Such pervasive mass-media reporting smoothed the way for deceptions that have elevated Pete Buttigieg in polls during recent weeks with his deceptive "Medicare for All Who Want It" slogan. That rhetoric springboards from the false premises that Medicare for All would deprive people of meaningful choice and would somehow reduce coverage.

In late September, with scant media scrutiny, Buttigieg launched an ad campaign against Medicare for All that has continued. Using insurance-industry talking points, he is deliberately confusing the current "choice" of predatory for-profit insurance plans with the genuine full choice of healthcare providers that top-quality Medicare for everyone would offer.

Mainstream media outlets are ill-positioned to refute such distortions since they're routinely purveying such distortions themselves.

And:


Eric Boehlert's picture
Article Tools E-mail



Excerpt:

Last winter, CNN for weeks stood by its extraordinary and inexplicable decision to hire Sarah Isgur Flores, a career Republican Party operative with absolutely no journalism experience, to be the network’s political editor. A hardcore partisan, Isgur spent her career spinning for Republicans such as Ted Cruz, Mitt Romney, and Carly Fiorina. Until last year, Isgur worked as a spokesperson for then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Department of Justice. CNN staffers were reportedly demoralized by the Isgur move—and for good reason, since CNN political editors should be journalists, period.


If CNN wants to hire conservatives like Isgur to go on camera and bolster Trump talking points, that's the network's choice. But to hire someone with Isgur's resume to work behind the scenes and oversee campaign coverage remains a baffling decision to this day. "Her Twitter includes fact-free invectives against liberals and repeatedly rails against the ‘abortion industry,’" The Daily Beast noted at the time.

By March, CNN acknowledged the controversy and announced that Isgur "is no longer taking a job as a political editor in the Washington bureau. Instead Isgur will be a political analyst at the network, sharing her insights through television segments like many other commentators do."


But now, more questions are being raised about why CNN ever even considered hiring an openly partisan operative for a key campaign coverage position. The questions come as CNN continues to struggle with trying to balance its desire to employ conservative voices for political balance while also maintaining common-sense standards at the network.