Continued Trump Administration Fallout

[Au165]

There will be a lot of these stories over the next couple of months/years so figured we could condense it in one running thread. We already had Rudy getting squeezed the other day, but now we have a federal judge giving a scathing ruling essentially saying Barr lied to both Congress and the public about why he chose not to charge Trump for obstruction laid out in the Mueller report.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/05/judge-orders-justice-department-release-trump-obstruction-memo/4952659001/

It'll be slow, but we will eventually unravel how much crap was actually going on within the administration.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 10:41 AM)Au165 Wrote: There will be a lot of these stories over the next couple of months/years so figured we could condense it in one running thread. We already had Rudy getting squeezed the other day, but now we have a federal judge giving a scathing ruling essentially saying Barr lied to both Congress and the public about why he chose not to charge Trump for obstruction laid out in the Mueller report.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2021/05/05/judge-orders-justice-department-release-trump-obstruction-memo/4952659001/

It'll be slow, but we will eventually unravel how much crap was actually going on within the administration.

LOL I was just about to start a thread on the NYT article about this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/us/politics/barr-trump-obstruction-russia-inquiry.html

In this case, it looks like the intent is to make public Barr's "cover" for arguing that Trump had been exonerated by the Mueller Report--which is still the assumption of every Trump supporter who claims the Russia investigation was a "hoax."

Barr argued there was a deliberation in which he received legal advice that Trump could not be prosecuted. Judge Jackson, who has now seen the "deliberative" memo, calls BS on that. There was never a question over whether Trump would be prosecuted. And so no "deliberation" took place.

Now Barr doesn't get to claim the protection of deliberation.

And glad to see this issue brought back before the public. I remember in this forum there were actually people saw no need to check Barr's "summary" of the MR against the Report itself.  And could not be dissuaded from Barr's misinterpretation.

[Au165]

(05-05-2021, 10:50 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL I was just about to start a thread on the NYT article about this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/us/politics/barr-trump-obstruction-russia-inquiry.html

In this case, it looks like the intent is to make public Barr's "cover" for arguing that Trump had been exonerated by the Mueller Report--which is still the assumption of every Trump supporter who claims the Russia investigation was a "hoax."

Barr argued there was a deliberation in which he received legal advice that Trump could not be prosecuted. Judge Jackson, who has now seen the "deliberative" memo, calls BS on that. There was never a question over whether Trump would be prosecuted. And so no "deliberation" took place.

Barr doesn't get to claim the protection of deliberation.

And glad to see this issue brought back before the public. I remember in this forum there were actually people saw no need to check Barr's "summary" of the MR against the Report itself.  And could not be dissuaded from Barr's misinterpretation.

There is now the issue of Bill Barr lying under oath to Congress that he had deliberated with OLC to come to the conclusion about whether or not to charge for obstruction. Since he never actually deliberated with them per the Judge, that sure does look like he committed perjury. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-05-2021, 10:55 AM)Au165 Wrote: There is now the issue of Bill Barr lying under oath to Congress that he had deliberated with OLC to come to the conclusion about whether or not to charge for obstruction. Since he never actually deliberated with them per the Judge, that sure does look like he committed perjury. 

That's a can of worms that I don't think would be worth the political capital that would need to be spent on it.

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 10:50 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL I was just about to start a thread on the NYT article about this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/05/04/us/politics/barr-trump-obstruction-russia-inquiry.html

In this case, it looks like the intent is to make public Barr's "cover" for arguing that Trump had been exonerated by the Mueller Report--which is still the assumption of every Trump supporter who claims the Russia investigation was a "hoax."

Nothing - no revelations, no new documents, nothing - will ever change that perception that Russia was a hoax. Truth and facts play zero role in that.

Already it is known as fact that Russia ran a wide-spread influence campaign, also that Trump's campaign manager gave critical polling data to an oligarch he was highly indebted wth in an apparent attempt to help Russia target those efforts more efficiently.
If that is not a scandal, nothing ever will be. Sure it is also the tip of an iceberg. Eg. it is known that Trump ordered subordinates to falsify official records and whatnot and that he was only saved by people like McGahn not following his orders; that his son only got off the hook because he could be seen as particularly naive and clueless; that Trump blurted out secrets to Lawrow and met Lawrow in secret; that his advisor or whatever Stone coordinated the conveniently timed Hillary Email dumps with Wikileaks; that Trump explicitly got not exonerated; that the reason he could not be indicted was not him being found innocent or a lack of evidence, but the DOJ policy of not indicting sitting presidents, even if that cronie Barr claimed otherwise.
People saw Trump standing in Helsinki and making an ass out of himself and the US, not only by believing Putin over his own intelligence, but just as well by taking up Putin on an "incredible offer", Russia helping with investigating the Russia hoax in exchange for Russia getting a hold on Americans Putin doesn't like that much. What a sad joke. Everyone saw Trump lieing his ass off about Russian influence campaigns, lieing to the people about a matter of high national importance. All that is known and all that could not change that Russia was a "hoax". And all that could not change the imho unspeakably bizarre perception that the whole Russia saga was a win for Trump over the evil media and that Maddow et al. are the real guilty parties to begin with.

And since that is so, not a single new relevation will move the needle in any way. Those who are interested in that are those that already saw the things as they were. Those who do not want to see it as such will never change their opinion. All these articles and efforts and revelations, devastatingly, are an exercise of futility. It does not matter.

For sure, if Podesta had done what Manafort was found to have done, the same people shouting Russia hoax would demand heads rolling. But the same is true if president Biden allowed Turkish officials to beat up Americans on American soil, and for 1.000 other things mostly already forgotten. It also would be true with the things leading to the two impeachments, that also are "hoaxes" no matter how clearly they are anything but.

Or in short: I advise against getting any hopes up with the truth coming out. People don't care.

[Au165]

(05-05-2021, 11:16 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's a can of worms that I don't think would be worth the political capital that would need to be spent on it.

Disagree, if you let the Attorney General sit and lie to Congress without being checked you have forfeited oversight of a very powerful position. At this point worrying about how people view decisions is pointless because you will be roasted for being partisan no matter what you do. Do what the facts tell you should be done. 

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 11:29 AM)hollodero Wrote: Nothing - no revelations, no new documents, nothing - will ever change that perception that Russia was a hoax. Truth and facts play zero role in that.

And since that is so, not a single new relevation will move the needle in any way. Those who are interested in that are those that already saw the things as they were. Those who do not want to see it as such will never change their opinion. All these articles and efforts and revelations, devastatingly, are an exercise of futility. It does not matter.

Or in short: I advise against getting any hopes up with the truth coming out. People don't care.

Hollo, do you doubt that "truth and facts" played some role in Dems regaining of the the House, the Senate and the Presidency? 

I'd say the "needle" has moved quite a bit, enough to push a majority of independents and a fraction of Trumpists towards the light. 

The truth is pretty much already out; and more support keeps coming.

Trump's power in the Senate prevented his removal from office, but that's a result of minority control. It's not confirmation that "people don't care."  

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-05-2021, 11:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: Disagree, if you let the Attorney General sit and lie to Congress without being checked you have forfeited oversight of a very powerful position. At this point worrying about how people view decisions is pointless because you will be roasted for being partisan no matter what you do. Do what the facts tell you should be done. 

Yea I’m not worried about upsetting the perpetually upset snowflake trumpet crowd. We had a complicit DOJ that was politicized and weaponized under the previous administration and had no desire for justice. Some 3rd world dictator type shit.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 11:42 AM)Au165 Wrote: Disagree, if you let the Attorney General sit and lie to Congress without being checked you have forfeited oversight of a very powerful position. At this point worrying about how people view decisions is pointless because you will be roasted for being partisan no matter what you do. Do what the facts tell you should be done. 

Yes. Let's get back to people upholding the rule of law, whether there is political reward or not. 

Making public the memo in question here, if it establishes what judge Jackson says it does, is another important step in shedding light on the murky, partisan proceedings of the Barr DOJ. 

Also, it helps to restate Mueller's findings again, and so push back on the RW narrative which arose after Barr's "interpretation" of Mueller--namely that Trump was exonerated. 

Dems warned that failure to impeach Trump for lawless behavior the first time would be an incentive to more. 

No harm in finding that behavior back in the news, as House Republicans prepare to remove Cheney from her leadership position for exhibiting integrity and putting country and rule of law above party.

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 12:48 PM)Dill Wrote: Hollo, do you doubt that "truth and facts" played some role in Dems regaining of the the House, the Senate and the Presidency? 

I don't know, but yeah I doubt it. I think this swing had more to do with the Corona mess (and maybe with some truth and facts surrounding that) and with Trump being just such an insufferable moron. I think it has way more to do with that than with any revelations that came out of impeachments or Russia investigations; and given how close the election was, I think Trump would have been reelected easily if Corona had not happened.

But as said, I don't and can't know. I came across some Trump supporters that reconsidered due to his tweets or his takes on Corona; I just never ever came across anyone who claimed he voted for Trump and reconsidered because of all the shady stuff Trump, his surroundings or Barr's DOJ pulled. These things seemed to have zero impact on any measurables like approval rating; and the mechanisms that made distinct non-liberals overlook these deeds seemed pretty much collectively rooted in any Trump supporter's mind, and extended to any liberal-unfriendly mind (they're all the same, the media blows it out of proportion etc etc). Something that imho could be witnessed on these boards as well, not exclusively with distinct Trump supporters.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 01:06 PM)hollodero Wrote: I don't know, but yeah I doubt it. I think this swing had more to do with the Corona mess (and maybe with some truth and facts surrounding that) and with Trump being just such an insufferable moron. I think it has way more to do with that than with any revelations that came out of impeachments or Russia investigations; and given how close the election was, I think Trump would have been reelected easily if Corona had not happened.

But as said, I don't and can't know. I came across some Trump supporters that reconsidered due to his tweets or his takes on Corona; I just never ever came across anyone who claimed he voted for Trump and reconsidered because of all the shady stuff Trump, his surroundings or Barr's DOJ pulled. These things seemed to have zero impact on any measurables like approval rating; and the mechanisms that made distinct non-liberals overlook these deeds seemed pretty much collectively rooted in any Trump supporter's mind, and extended to any liberal-unfriendly mind (they're all the same, the media blows it out of proportion etc etc). Something that imho could be witnessed on these boards as well, not exclusively with distinct Trump supporters.

ARRGHHHH!!  Forgot about COVID.

I concede you are likely right, that the coronavirus created the biggest shift away from Trump.  

However, that wasn't in play yet during the mid terms. Surely Trump's lawlessness had some affect on that.

If you are right then we may no longer have the needed mass of voters who understand, let alone care about, rule of law.

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 01:32 PM)Dill Wrote: However, that wasn't in play yet during the mid terms. Surely Trump's lawlessness had some affect on that.

Maybe. Then again, having the presidential party lose seats in midterm elections apparently has a long tradition and is not so extraordinary.

(05-05-2021, 01:32 PM)Dill Wrote: If you are right then we may no longer have the needed mass of voters who understand, let alone care about, rule of law.

That is what I believe, yeah. I mean, sure, we can debate whether there's a small non-liberal slice of the electorate that does, or if there is no such slice at all. These seem to be the two possibilities and both are a bit depressing.
If there were a critical mass of voters who could not stomach lawlessness, Trump could not have gotten elected in the first place. He already was a known scammer back then, who just had to settle a case regarding running a fraudulent university.
I have a hard time seeing someone saying a university scam is ok but displaying any additional criminal energy is a step too far. On the contrary, I came to believe that Trump was more or less right when he claimed he could shoot someone and not lose voters.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 01:51 PM)hollodero Wrote: Maybe. Then again, having the presidential party lose seats in midterm elections apparently has a long tradition and is not so extraordinary.

That is what I believe, yeah. I mean, sure, we can debate whether there's a small non-liberal slice of the electorate that does, or if there is no such slice at all. These seem to be the two possibilities and both are a bit depressing.
If there were a critical mass of voters who could not stomach lawlessness, Trump could not have gotten elected in the first place. He already was a known scammer back then, who just had to settle a case regarding running a fraudulent university.
I have a hard time seeing someone saying a university scam is ok but displaying any additional criminal energy is a step too far. On the contrary, I came to believe that Trump was more or less right when he claimed he could shoot someone and not lose voters.

Well, they did lose a bit more than the norm--40 seats.

I still think there is more than a "slice"--the proportion may even be near 50% who still prioritize rule of law--including never trumpers and Cheney and Romney.  But it's now a question of what mass is really needed if Trump can get elected, and then get even more votes the second time around. The question of whether the US can continue as a democracy is still on the table. 

And yeah, as far as Trump university and other scams--remember one of the big knocks against Hillary was the supposed/manufactured corruption surrounding the Clinton foundation, which funneled millions of dollars into real aid for millions of people. "Crooked" Hillary was "corrupt" and "entitled" and a great symbol of the swamp created by deficit-expanding Dems. And she lied and obfuscated about her email service.

Then Trump was elected and suddenly corruption and deficits and lying didn't matter. It was never really about that.

The most charitable interpretation I can put on this is that enough people had been convinced by RWM* that the "elites" running the country were already lawless and so Trump had to do what he had to do. If there is going to be a lawless corrupt person at the pinnacle of power in the US, then let it be someone who favors the "deplorables."  

*One thinks here of Michael Anton's essay from the Claremont Review --"The Flight 93 Election"--in which he argues that voters failed to "storm the cockpit" in 2016, Hillary would likely win two terms and real Americans could no longer get their country back. Rush Limbaugh read the entire essay on his radio show. 

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 02:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, they did lose a bit more than the norm--40 seats.

That is true, I'm not so sure though whether attributing this excessive losses to Trump's lawlessness isn't a stretch. Some might just have been turned off by his narcissism, his vile rhetorics or his asinine tweets, realizing he does not grow with the office. Many (that would be my guess) might have been turned off by his broken health care promises, aka full coverage for everyone for a fraction of the cost and it's gonna be so easy. This might have fallen on the party much, especially after this great healthcare plan resulted in a failed repeal without replace vote.
In some instances, the losses might even be a result of candidates not going full Trump. I remember Trump's own analysis, Mia Love gave me no love and whatnot. Maybe he was right. Many 'RINOs' around back then; the Congress after the midterm mostly eliminated the moderate republicans.
Or it was Trump asking Comey to let Flynn go or him firing Comey and citing Trump and Russia as the main reason or some other borderline lawless move. Who knows. I doubt it.

(05-05-2021, 02:08 PM)Dill Wrote: I still think there is more than a "slice"--the proportion may even be near 50% who still prioritize rule of law--including never trumpers and Cheney and Romney. 

Yah, the never Trumpers. I guess I've heard dozens of predictions on how the end for Trump is now coming, after this and that instance, Corker turns away, Steve Schmidt talks bad about Trump, someone else now does too, justice is closing in on his behind, everything's crumbling, the rats are fleeing, the ship is sinking, all will collapse now. It never did.

Trump started with 45% approval, and had 45% approval on 2020's election day. Despite Russia and Ukraine and nepotism and corrupt admin members and all the other lawless stuff. Zero net movement registered.

(05-05-2021, 02:08 PM)Dill Wrote: And she lied and obfuscated about her email service.

Which is true, she indeed did. And while I agree that it did not matter given who the alternative was, I never thought this was just a non-issue, like many liberals seemed to think. Comey did not say "extremely careless" just for fun and games, after all. But I don't want to open that box too widely.

(05-05-2021, 02:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Then Trump was elected and suddenly corruption and deficits and lying didn't matter. It was never really about that.

Nah, it always is about that bipolar culture war. Sure.
Turns out, that war goes one even if one side leaves the realm of democratic principle, the war is stronger than that. Yeah, one can wonder if a democracy can survive in that environment long term. I keep my guess to myself, I don't want to be too negative.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(05-05-2021, 02:08 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, they did lose a bit more than the norm--40 seats.

2009-2011, Democrats held a 256-178 lead in the House (+78 D)
2011-2013, Republicans held a 242-193 lead in the House (+49 R)

That's a loss of 63 by the Ds there. That was in the midterms of Obama's first term. Just seems like for awhile now it's hard for a party to have Presidency, Senate, and House all at once. Doesn't seem to last long when they do. In the last 25 Congresses (50 years) it has only happened 8 times.

Personally, I welcome the constant shifting back and forth between parties because I hope that one of these days with it shifting back and forth so quickly, people will catch onto the fact that neither party cares about you and it'll open up the door for third parties. Not that I think those third parties will initially care much more, but maybe the sudden competition for your vote will make the two big parties get their thumbs out of their asses and make some changes.

[Dill]

This possibly deserves its own thread, but it touches the issue Hollo and I were just discussing, namely the GOP's critical anti-democratic mass, which is not going away, apparently.

Liz Cheney: The GOP is at a turning point. History is watching us.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/05/05/liz-cheney-republican-party-turning-point/

In public statements again this week, former president Donald Trump has repeated his claims that the 2020 election was a fraud and was stolen. His message: I am still the rightful president, and President Biden is illegitimate. Trump repeats these words now with full knowledge that exactly this type of language provoked violence on Jan. 6. And, as the Justice Department and multiple federal judges have suggested, there is good reason to believe that Trump’s language can provoke violence again. Trump is seeking to unravel critical elements of our constitutional structure that make democracy work — confidence in the result of elections and the rule of law. No other American president has ever done this.

The Republican Party is at a turning point, and Republicans must decide whether we are going to choose truth and fidelity to the Constitution. In the immediate wake of the violence of Jan. 6, almost all of us knew the gravity and the cause of what had just happened — we had witnessed it firsthand.

House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.) left no doubt in his public remarks. On the floor of the House on Jan. 13, McCarthy said:“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday’s attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” Now, McCarthy has changed his story.

I am a conservative Republican, and the most conservative of conservative values is reverence for the rule of law. Each of us swears an oath before God to uphold our Constitution. The electoral college has spoken. More than 60 state and federal courts, including multiple Trump-appointed judges, have rejected the former president’s arguments, and refused to overturn election results. That is the rule of law; that is our constitutional system for resolving claims of election fraud.

The question before us now is whether we will join Trump’s crusade to delegitimize and undo the legal outcome of the 2020 election, with all the consequences that might have. I have worked overseas in nations where changes in leadership come only with violence, where democracy takes hold only until the next violent upheaval. America is exceptional because our constitutional system guards against that. At the heart of our republic is a commitment to the peaceful transfer of power among political rivals in accordance with law. President Ronald Reagan described this as our American “miracle.”

While embracing or ignoring Trump’s statements might seem attractive to some for fundraising and political purposes, that approach will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country. Trump has never expressed remorse or regret for the attack of Jan. 6 and now suggests that our elections, and our legal and constitutional system, cannot be trusted to do the will of the people. This is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against Communist China and its claims that democracy is a failed system.

For Republicans, the path forward is clear.

First, support the ongoing Justice Department criminal investigations of the Jan. 6 attack. Those investigations must be comprehensive and objective; neither the White House nor any member of Congress should interfere.

Second, we must support a parallel bipartisan review by a commission with subpoena power to seek and find facts; it will describe for all Americans what happened. This is critical to defeat the misinformation and nonsense circulating in the press and on social media. No currently serving member of Congress — with an eye to the upcoming election cycle — should participate. We should appoint former officials, members of the judiciary and other prominent Americans who can be objective, just as we did after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The commission should be focused on the Jan. 6 attacks. The Black Lives Matter and antifa violence of last summer was illegal and reprehensible, but it is a different problem with a different solution.

Finally, we Republicans need to stand for genuinely conservative principles, and steer away from the dangerous and anti-democratic Trump cult of personality. In our hearts, we are devoted to the American miracle. We believe in the rule of law, in limited government, in a strong national defense, and in prosperity and opportunity brought by low taxes and fiscally conservative policies.

There is much at stake now, including the ridiculous wokeness of our political rivals, the irrational policies at the border and runaway spending that threatens a return to the catastrophic inflation of the 1970s. Reagan formed a broad coalition from across the political spectrum to return America to sanity, and we need to do the same now. We know how. But this will not happen if Republicans choose to abandon the rule of law and join Trump’s crusade to undermine the foundation of our democracy and reverse the legal outcome of the last election.

History is watching. Our children are watching. We must be brave enough to defend the basic principles that underpin and protect our freedom and our democratic process. I am committed to doing that, no matter what the short-term political consequences might be.

Remember that Cheney was not a never-Trumper, and she voted for Trump policies more consistently than even McCarthy, Gaetz, and others now seeking to remove her for prioritizing rule of law over the Fuehrerprinzip.

[Dill]

(05-05-2021, 06:08 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: 2009-2011, Democrats held a 256-178 lead in the House (+78 D)
2011-2013, Republicans held a 242-193 lead in the House (+49 R)

That's a loss of 63 by the Ds there. That was in the midterms of Obama's first term. Just seems like for awhile now it's hard for a party to have Presidency, Senate, and House all at once. Doesn't seem to last long when they do. In the last 25 Congresses (50 years) it has only happened 8 times.

Personally, I welcome the constant shifting back and forth between parties because I hope that one of these days with it shifting back and forth so quickly, people will catch onto the fact that neither party cares about you and it'll open up the door for third parties. Not that I think those third parties will initially care much more, but maybe the sudden competition for your vote will make the two big parties get their thumbs out of their asses and make some changes.

One of the parties is headed by a guy who sicced a mob on the capital to try and preserve his power, after he fumbled the COVID response, and many other things.  He has persuaded millions that Biden was illegitimately elected. That guy constantly turns national problems into stories of his own persecution. When in power he punished people for displaying integrity and respect for rule of law. To stay in his good graces, many politicians of his party continue that policy to stay in his good graces.

The other party is headed by guy who looks to be desperately trying to get us all to herd immunity and address the economic effects of the COVID shut down. He doesn't constantly brag about himself or dismiss soldiers, ambassadors and politicians for displaying integrity. 

Wouldn't you agree, Len, that one party might care more about us than the other one?  It looks like the party in power IS making changes with all COVID and infrastructure bills going forward.  

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 07:17 PM)Dill Wrote: Remember that Cheney was not a never-Trumper, and she voted for Trump policies more consistently than even McCarthy, Gaetz, and others now seeking to remove her for prioritizing rule of law over the Fuehrerprinzip.

Yeah, so that's my prediction, she will lose that battle, sooner or later. Probably sooner, she already is kind of a loner in the party really with that stance. She'll be gone, you might mention her once or twice after that as a sign of hope for a turning tide and then forget about her llike we all forgot about Jeff Flake. Trump will claim he retired her and a crowd will cheer. She will then maybe write a book, it will be called conservative at heart, and we will talk about the three most Trump-critical passages in it for a while. There will be speculation she runs with Amash for the libertarians in 2024, which will die down. She will appear on some networks she never appeared before, Colbert will probably invite her. She won't be exactly late-night material though, so in the end she probably disappears into some corporate boards.

Or she turns everything around with her brave stance that only to me reads like a political obituary. I just don't see how she could.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-05-2021, 08:29 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, so that's my prediction, she will lose that battle, sooner or later. Probably sooner, she already is kind of a loner in the party really with that stance. She'll be gone, you might mention her once or twice after that as a sign of hope for a turning tide and then forget about her llike we all forgot about Jeff Flake. Trump will claim he retired her and a crowd will cheer. She will then maybe write a book, it will be called conservative at heart, and we will talk about the three most Trump-critical passages in it for a while. There will be speculation she runs with Amash for the libertarians in 2024, which will die down. She will appear on some networks she never appeared before, Colbert will probably invite her. She won't be exactly late-night material though, so in the end she probably disappears into some corporate boards.

Or she turns everything around with her brave stance that only to me reads like a political obituary. I just don't see how she could.

I think the biggest issue for the GOP leadership with Cheney is she won't stop rehashing these things in interviews and public statements.  They almost completely supported her after the impeachment vote after all.  You can certainly claim she's taking a principled stand, and maybe she is.  I have to remind myself that a person's child is not them, that the sins of the parent don't transfer to the child.  Even so, it's awfully damned hard for me to feel any sorrow for Chaney.  Maybe it's a character flaw on my part, maybe even likely.  But her father was top three of the biggest pieces of shit to ever hold high office in this country and I honestly think the world, certainly the US, would be much better off if that family never held public office again.  The Clinton's, Kennedy's and Bush's too, for that matter.

[hollodero]

(05-05-2021, 08:38 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think the biggest issue for the GOP leadership with Cheney is she won't stop rehashing these things in interviews and public statements.  They almost completely supported her after the impeachment vote after all.  You can certainly claim she's taking a principled stand, and maybe she is.  I have to remind myself that a person's child is not them, that the sins of the parent don't transfer to the child.  Even so, it's awfully damned hard for me to feel any sorrow for Chaney.  Maybe it's a character flaw on my part, maybe even likely.  But her father was top three of the biggest pieces of shit to ever hold high office in this country and I honestly think the world, certainly the US, would be much better off if that family never held public office again.  The Clinton's, Kennedy's and Bush's too, for that matter.

As someone with his share of Nazis in his family history, I have to refrain from holding her father's sins against her. Also, I am more than content with her own sins anyway. She did keep her mouth shut and rose in the ranks of the party she now suddenly deems to be at a moral crossroads and in danger of going down a dark path, as if there were no signs for that in the years before. I have no sorrow for her whatsoever, and I don't really believe she is genuine; if she were, she'd be long gone. 
I feel she just made a strategic mistake and fell into a trap in these few weeks after the Capitol storming where many for whatever reason seemed to believe Trump is actually tarnished and done now. She saw an opportunity to come out ahead in that situation and jumped the gun with her impeachment vote and her oh so brave stance of being pro law and democracy and not liking Capitol storms. And now, after it became clear that Trump is anything but gone and everyone is back to lining up behind him to kiss His High Moronity's ass, she's stuck on a position no longer feasible within her party any longer.

To say something nice, at least she's not Lindsey "I am sooo done with this now" Graham. She did not go full 180 and held her probably career-ending course instead, which maybe deserves some respect. I wouldn't go as far as to call it principled, because see above, a principled person would not be there in the first place, and probably also would not have gone down the "these Peter Strzok text messages might amount to treason and coup-planning" road.

Btw. I wonder who is on that top three pieces of shit list of yours. I mean, Trump has to be on that too... right? Nixon? Just three seems so narrow so soon...