103 thoughts on “Cuomo, Rudy, and Ukraine, Oh My”

  1. I saw an interesting take on this that said that this one might have legs because it’s Trump doing something behind closed doors.

    If Trump calls for Russia to release Hillary’s emails in a speech? No problem. Hey, it’s funny.
    If Trump calls for Russia to release Hillary’s emails in a private phone call? EVERYBODY FREAK OUT.

    So this one might have legs.Report

    1. And add in the reporting of a senior intel whistleblower being quashed after the DNI’s IG said Congressional notification should be triggered and you may have something.Report

  2. Opening scene, remake of A Few Good Men:

    “Col. Jessup, did you order a Code Red?”

    “I did not, and you’re damn right I did!”

    End Scene
    Credits.Report

  3. Life is so sped up now for us old folks. We were supposed to have a week of “GAH FAKE NEWS THE MEDIA LIES” bull squat before trumpkins say “well yeah of course we did and we would do it again. Laws…shmaws. What’s yur problem” I yearn for the blissful slowness and peace of two years ago.Report

    1. If you’re going to get to “term limits are for suckers and anyone suggesting Trump step down is unpatriotic” far enough in advance to make sure there no meaningful 2024 Republican primaries, you have to keep a foot on the gas.Report

  5. Considering the media has spent the last three years pooping the bed over Trump, gathering up said poop to make a mountain of it, and then smearing said poop all over themselves (looking at you NYT), I am content roll my eyes at this. Could there be something? Sure, but at this point, I will place my bet on the pass line.Report

    1. I don’t know how to read this.

      Is Trump taunting the press and saying “you won’t throw me into the briar patch!” because he thinks they’re genre savvy?

      Or is he genre savvy and thinks they’re not?

      Or what?

      I’m so confused.

      Report

    2. Trump is accused of trying to force Ukraine to dig up dirt on political opponents:
      Trump fans: Hmm, I’m not seeing any evidence;

      Trump’s personal lawyer: “I leaned on Ukraine to force them to dig up dirt on my political opponents”;
      Trump fans: Hmm, just not seeing it;

      Trump: One autographed book, “Russian Penis Enlarger 3000, Or, How I Leaned On Ukraine To Force Them To Dig Up Dirt On My Political Opponents- It Is My Bag, Baby”Report

    3. Hmmm maybe there should be a report hundreds of pages long showing exactly what we know about the investigation. People, could like you know, read the report to see exactly how much corruption happened and even tally a scorecard on the things the “media” got right and wrong. Short answer: plenty of both. But if only the actual substance was there in an official report………(wistful)….if only….Report

  6. Eight calls to the President of the Ukraine for dirt on Biden’s son. Eight times.

    But it owns the libs so people will defend it here.Report

      1. Anyway, here is the contact info for Nancy Pelosi (you need to verify that you’re in her district) and I recommend that all people who are in her district contact her and DEMAND that she start impeachment proceedings.

        If you live near Washington DC, I urge you to participate in sit-ins at her office. If you can only go for a couple hours, take some bottled water with you and share with the people who can be there longer! Hold their place for them while they go off to use the john.Report

        1. Wouldn’t you say that pressuring republicans for impeachment would be the more sensible course of action? If any significant fraction of the GOP were to call for impeachment Pelosi would put it into motion in no time flat.

          As long as the GOP is united in support of Trump; pressuring Pelosi is simply advocating for banging her head against a wall; no surprise she would decline.Report

              1. Or.

                Angry Democrat in 2021: “Damn that impeachment drive and subsequent acquittal sure helped push Trump over the edge in 2020. Kinda like it boosted Clinton back in the 90’s. Who’da seen that coming? “Report

              2. Clinton had very high favorables and was charged with lying about a blowjob

                Trump has very low favorables and is charged with (eg) attempting to extort a foreign government for personal political favors.

                I mean, I realize we’re just banging heads on this issue at this point, but it’s entirely obvious to me that there’s no downside risk to aggressively investigating Trump via House impeachment powers whereas there’s massive downside risk to not impeaching and being viewed (correctly, in my view) as complicit in Trump’s corruption.Report

              3. Yeah, I mean at the fundamental level we’re disagreeing on the risks. I see massive downside risk to proceeding and failing with impeachment in both republican turnout factor, the value of an “I was acquitted in the Senate” message to low info voters and swing voter disenchantment with pushing forward without a smoking gun. I don’t think there’s an easy way to tell which one of us has taken the correct temperature of the electorate on this.Report

              4. The massive downside risk I see isn’t just limited to this election cycle North. Failing to impeach Trump is something the party will have to live with, and live down, for at least a generation.Report

              5. It’s a two party system. If failing to impeach him will be that big a burden in the long run then electing him and affirmatively supporting him will be a hundred times worse.Report

              8. Elizabeth Warren tweets:

                After the Mueller report, Congress had a duty to begin impeachment. By failing to act, Congress is complicit in Trump’s latest attempt to solicit foreign interference to aid him in US elections. Do your constitutional duty and impeach the president.

                She gets it.Report

              9. No she doesn’t. She has no idea what she’s just stepped into, nor does most of the press.

                Trump was trying to get a foreign government to investigate their end of corruption involving a top US government official. Biden certainly did use his power (and an open threat to withhold $1 billion in US aid) if their government went ahead and investigated that US corruption.

                Trump is telling them to keep on investigating, while the Democrats are telling them to cover it all up. Trump’s conned the Democrats into demanding a cover up of foreign collusion and the corruption and bribery of US officials.

                Trump has placed them in a kill box, and he’s going to enjoy the heck out of this. The beautiful part is that he’d look bad if he went after Biden, so he’s using his Sharpie to make the press do all the dirty work because they’re like a cat chasing a laser dot.

                They’re all going to reflexively fire at a Trump poster without realizing that Biden was standing right behind it.

                Sure, he could do as his advisers want and release his phone transcripts, but he’s going to let the Democrats build it all up to a 24/7 scream fest so that absolutely nobody misses what happens.Report

              11. Right… I think she picks up a few points.

                Hunter Biden as the background son of Presidential contender is one thing, but spotlight on Hunter Biden as part of Impeachment proceedings? Hunter Biden doesn’t stand up to that kind of scrutiny. Not well, anyhow.

                Pair him with the Heinz scion and you’ve got a Bernie/Warren shishkabob of unearned privilege… even if its all “legal” its gonna stink.Report

              12. Nope.

                From Chait’s article:
                http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/09/trumps-ukraine-scandal-is-hiding-in-plain-sight.html

                “We have known since last spring that Trump, working through Giuliani, is pressuring Ukraine to supply dirt on Joe Biden. The alleged misconduct by Biden concerns his work as vice-president under the Obama administration. The allegation is that Biden supposedly tried to sack a Ukrainian prosecutor who was probing his son’s business in the country. The allegation against Biden is totally baseless.
                In fact, as Bloomberg News discovered, the prosecution was finished before Biden took a stance, the prosecutor was widely considered corrupt, his sacking was consistent with the administration’s pro-democracy agenda, and the Obama administration supported the investigation into Hunter Biden anyway.”Report

          2. I don’t know that they can impeach Biden before he has even won the election, but perhaps impeachment is similar to indicting a ham sandwich.

            In any event, impeachment should definitely be on the table because threatening Ukrainian officials to protect his son’s corrupt business deal (a deal which wouldn’t have existed if Obama hadn’t put Biden in charge of our Ukraine policy) is certainly outside the bounds, as would be his son flying over to China on Air Force Two and coming back with a billion dollar private equity deal with the Chinese government. I’m pretty sure the Chinese government doesn’t hand cash and important board positions to every random American battling infidelity, alcoholism, and drug abuse, so something fishy was definitely going on.Report

            1. No doubt he stopped at Comet Ping Pong pizza to drop off the child prostitutes he was smuggling and helped expedite the assassination of Vince Foster while he was at it. At last, George, you have uncovered the true mastermind behind HRC’s eeeevils; Biden!Report

              2. You didn’t hear about the $1.5 billion dollar deal Hunter Biden got with China?

                The press has certainly heard about it, and now they possibly can’t stop themselves from talking all about it because they think it might get Trump. ^_^Report

              3. I heard about you spinning it up here, but the press would be talking about it if it existed. The press talks about everything, most assuredly including things that hurt liberal political interests. Maybe even especially.Report

          3. As long as the GOP is united in support of Trump; pressuring Pelosi is simply advocating for banging her head against a wall; no surprise she would decline.

            Compare the above to: As long as the GOP controls the Senate passing bills out of the house is just banging her head against a wall; no surpise she would decline.

            There’s only one thing the Dem House can do right now that will have an effect on politics and policy: formally open an impeachment inquiry into Trump and his cohorts. The alternative – focusing on their legislative agenda – is not only just banging their heads against a wall, it’s fiddling while rome burns.

            Or shorter: every time Pelosi refuses to open an impeachment inquiry the Dems chances of winning in 2020 go down.Report

            1. Passing legislation contrasts the Dems favorably with the GOP and their endless ACA repeals. It tells the voters what the Dems affirmatively are for and makes a case for them having control of government.

              You have the view that impeachment is popular and necessary and will gain momentum if the triggered is pulled on it. That may even be the correct view, but every indication I see is that it isn’t. The public isn’t clamoring for impeachment: by and large they don’t think it’s merited.Report

              1. North, the public doesn’t support impeachment right now because a) the Dems haven’t engaged in any serious investigation of Trump’s corruption*, and b) Pelosi herself is against impeachment.

                *Remember when Pelosi said that one of the first things the Dem House would do is get a copy of Trump’s taxes? Oh my …. I can’t stop laughing….Report

              2. Ahh gotcha, it’s kind of a left wing version of the Tea Party line of thought. “Pelosi just doesn’t want it bad enough.”

                As I recall the house has called for Trumps taxes, he’s withheld them and it’s winding its way through the courts. I suppose she could send ninjas to lift them out of his business office or something?Report

              4. She promised to go get his taxes. She got elected, she went to get his taxes, then he broke the law and withheld them so she’s proceeding with the courts. Again, short of ninjas, I don’t see what more she could do to keep her promise.Report

    2. “But it owns the libs so people will defend it here.”

      Not just here;
      The entire Murdoch/ Fox News wurlitzer will defend it to the death.

      And more importantly, every Republican Senator will shrug it off and the Justice Department will be brought to heel.

      The Republic can withstand a lawless Executive or corrupt Justice or two;
      But the system can’t withstand both a corrupt executive and a corrupted judiciary, and corrupted Senate all at the same time.Report

        1. Why do you focus on Pelosi, to the exclusion of McConnell?

          I mean, I’m happy to pressure both of them, but one seems a bit more receptive than the other, don’t you think?Report

  7. CNN reports:

    The whistleblower didn’t have direct knowledge of the communications, an official briefed on the matter told CNN. Instead, the whistleblower’s concerns came in part from learning information that was not obtained during the course of their work, and those details have played a role in the administration’s determination that the complaint didn’t fit the reporting requirements under the intelligence whistleblower law, the official said.

    Report

    1. Well i guess it’s a good thing Trump and Guilianni didn’t, very subtlety and calmly of course as is their style, admit to repeatedly asking Ukraine to investigate a potential opponent. So move along nothing to see here.Report

            1. Why do you assume i haven’t already called or made my opinion known? But i have to admit your mastery of the recent admissions by trump and Gules has learnt me but good. Yet you still stay on brand with haranguing the wrong thinkers no matter what matter what Trump does. That is good fire discipline.Report

              1. Because it’s always pretty much safe to assume that someone has not called Nancy Pelosi.

                “Or made my opinion known”

                Hey! You’re making your opinion known here in these comments! Awesome.

                (*DID* you call Pelosi’s office, by the by?)

                Yet you still stay on brand with haranguing the wrong thinkers no matter what matter what Trump does.

                Greg, the person who decides whether or not we Impeach Trump is not Team Evil. It’s Team Good. Team Good has to start the ball rolling here.Report

      1. True, there are never any guarantees that right makes might. There isn’t any magic shield that protects democracy and the republic.

        But if America slides into some dismal petty kleptocracy at least some of us can say we did our part.Report

    1. My unsolicited advise to House Democrats:

      Impeach the President, not Trump.
      Define the Power abused, not the law transgressed.
      Make the case that Congress is circumscribing Presidential Power, and that this is about defining limits for all future Presidents… and not because Trump is unique or especially bad.

      You can build consensus around this if done with the intent of reigning in Presidential Powers.

      I’ll say right now that while this seems easy, I’m not sure it is.Report

        1. And it will forever be on the record that the Republican Party covered for a lawless President.

          If that’s how they want to play it, that’s how we will have to play it.Report

              4. What is not in dispute is that the Republican Party, down to the last Senator, Congressperson, Governor and municipal judge, backs Trump wholeheartedly and (so far) asserts that he has done nothing wrong.

                So the most important part of impeachment is that it removes any plausible cover and forces everyone to go on the record for all of history to judge.Report

              6. The very best part of this is that the public’s opinion of the Democrats doesn’t matter anymore.

                The President came out and said “Yeah, I used the power of my office to withheld aid to Ukraine unless they dug up dirt on my opponent”.

                There isn’t really much left to investigate or discover, there isn’t some counter story that makes this all OK.

                It’s like he sat there in the Oval Office and brainstormed, “What could I do that would perfectly fit the Constitutional requirement for impeachment?”Report

            1. Ahh yes. The Clinton and D’s were wrong and bad which entitles R’s to One Free Presidency of Corruption including all you can eat election tampering, emoluments and grift coupon. I keep checking the mail for that offer but all i get all coupons for cheap window and crappy pizza.Report

              2. The claim was that Republicans covered for a lawless President, presented as though covering for a lawless President were something new and unique in the country’s experience. If you actually think there’s something there then go for it, but don’t be selling yourself the story that this is another example of the pure-hearted immaculate Democrats losing because they’re just too nice.Report

            2. Yeah, I think the real danger for Dems is inside the house. If any of the important televised interviews are conducted by sitting CCers (rather than staffers) things will go badly for them. They’re just not smart enough, on a bunch of levels, to pull this off.Report

              1. We’ll find out soon enough, but there’s chatter than Pelosi’s idea of opening up a formal impeachment inquiry is to have 6 committees come up with what they think are the most egregious offenses, compile them into a nice list with a bow on it, and have the full House take a vote. No interviews, no live testimony. Basically, no impeachment process. Just a vote.

                Well, that won’t work…Report

              3. If I were cynical I’d say this announcement didn’t include anything new, or constitute any change in her or the House’s views/powers on impeachment, since she *already* said (a couple weeks ago) that various committees were engaging in an impeachment inquiry.

                If I were cynical, I’d say this was a political stunt.Report

              1. This probably doesn’t count, because it’s from March:

                Report

  10. Right wing pollster Nate Silver has weighed in:

    Report

    1. One of the weirdest things about Silver is that he’s quietly moved from stats analyst to pure punditry without anyone having noticed. Even weirder is that he thinks he’s good at it, but maybe the bar is so low he’s right to think so.Report

      1. Hey, when you’re the one freakin’ guy who said “Trump could win this…” when everybody else was saying that they’d eat a bug if Trump broke 240, you too could be tempted to get high on your own supply.Report

Comments are closed.

Related Stories

US Department of Education Announces that it is Restarting Loan Collection

Jaybird April 22, 2025 13

Open Mic for the Week of 4/21/2025

Jaybird April 21, 2025 54

SCOTUS Temporarily Halts Trump Administration Removal of Venezuelans

OT Editors April 19, 2025

You may have missed

ratedr

Less Than a Decade Prior to the MPAA

Clare Briggs April 23, 2025 2
catcher

Movie of a Fan Playing the Game

Clare Briggs April 22, 2025
Patriots Opposed Kings

Back When Patriots Opposed Kings

David Thornton April 22, 2025 12
somebodyalways

Somebody is Always Taking the Joy out of Life

Clare Briggs April 21, 2025 5