Matt Taibbi

whoops lol you get the point

Lemieux's a sharp analyst from the left with no patience for posturing. He and many of its posters are Warren supporters, but they're also excellent on labor/union history -- areas in which so-called hippies have no interest.

I don't know what "but" is doing there.

One of the topics the site's educated me about is labor's decline and its effect on the Democratic polity and what the party has to do to get it back. This ain't a topic in which Chait and Ezra Klein have much interst -- and, yeah, LGM punches them more often than "hippies."

I like (most of) the graves, the natsec posts by Farley, and Campos’ rants. RIP SEK. Some of Dnexon’s posts are really good too. Lemieux and Loomis can be really one-note, for sure. I wish I found more of interest in Nelson and Nussbaum’s posts. Dave Brockington popping in to bitch about Corbynists is thankfully infrequent.

I like Lemieux and Loomis too but dear god do they have the worst sports takes.

I like (most of) the graves,

Excellent one on Josephus Daniels today! And a couple days ago on Grover Cleveland's evil attorney general (a redundant phrase) Richard Olney.

labor/union history -- areas in which so-called hippies have no interest

I guess I am not a hippie then.

The effect of post-revolutionary USSR under Stalin, the show trials, and the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact on the international labor movement was tragically bad, but the effect of the Cold War and McCarthyism on the USA labor movement was a steady movement from bad to worse. This doesn't even touch on the reactionary suppression of labor organizing in the USA, from before the Haymarket Massacre, up through WWI, then the Chehalis Massacre, right up up to 1934.

US labor history is one of massive beat downs followed by massive co-option. Sad.

not to mention Taft-Hartley.

erik loomis's posts on labor history are consistently excellent and probably the main reason i keep going back to LGM at this point. unfortunately loomis is also a total asshole. like, i've seen him be rude to ppl who comment on his posts to tell him how good they are.

the comments sections are pretty horrific at this point, basically just a bunch of dweebs who sincerely believe anyone who disagrees with them is on putin's payroll or whatever.

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup

Impeachment is bad because life under Trump is stable.

Seriously, what is wrong with this dude? The legitimacy crisis he is describing will come from Trump refusing to play by the rules, but the real problem is the guys who wants to ask him to play by the rules, because when he refuses, it will be chaos?

Imagine if a similar situation had taken place in January of 2009, involving president-elect Barack Obama. Picture a meeting between Obama and the heads of the CIA, NSA, and FBI, along with the DIA, in which the newly-elected president is presented with a report complied by, say, Judicial Watch, accusing him of links to al-Qaeda. Imagine further that they tell Obama they are presenting him with this information to make him aware of a blackmail threat, and to reassure him they won’t give news agencies a “hook” to publish the news.

I'd kinda hope Obama would be informed that Judicial Watch was compiling such a dossier? This is so so stupid

Could it be possible that whistleblowing and leaking is happening because agents in the intelligence and defense departments are actually concerned that Trump is a next-level lawbreaker/threat?

I could understand Taibbi's position during the russiagate years, but its more difficult to keep that up now there are stronger cases and now that public opinion is broadly behind it and likely to increase further

I'm not sure if he's being disingenuous in cautioning against his removal, that doesn't seem a particularly realistic outcome and he must know that (though I guess if his popularity tanks enough it could be a possibility)

He and his ilk are just all-in on the enemy-of-my-enemy angle, and Taibbi's enemies are three letter agencies and the Democratic Party

RIP SEK.

Knew him at UCI when I worked in the library and he was a grad student. A fine fellow, and very much missed.

https://www.salon.com/2019/10/13/donald-trump-is-a-criminal-and-impeachment-is-a-murky-amoral-struggle-both-these-things-are-true/?fbclid=IwAR3Uw5sQyL-h4t1qJ-7yxWY6vubZknda875toEURP8MlnD4ChruA5MkGAY4

this is really good

... what Bill Barr and Rudy Giuliani and their even less savory underlings are pursuing, in their globetrotting snipe hunt for imaginary enemies, is the shadow of a real question: Is Trump being impeached because he’s a threat to democracy, or because he’s an overly obvious threat to democracy, too stupid or too stubborn to play the game by the rules? Are his attackers defending the remnants of the peculiar republic bequeathed to us by Jefferson and Madison, as they claim, or just posturing amid the ruins for political advantage? We won’t know the answers, I suspect, until all this is over.

Is this bank robber being prosecuted by people who have profited off of corruption? Probably. But who fucking cares?

Taibbi's enemies are three letter agencies and the Democratic Party

good enemies

I really don't get the idea that impeachment is an amoral struggle. It seems an absolutely normal part of any democracy to have a process for getting rid of anyone who is just too odious. And this story, where Trump is literally abusing his power to hurt potential opponents in the next elections, is exactly what it's made for. I just don't get it at all. I mean, Taibbi tries to say that it's because other Americans don't know 'coups' the way he does, but he instead seems like someone who knows nothing in-between the US and Russia. Completely blinkered.

We had the Danish prime minister forced to resign in 93, and the country survived.

Serwer assumes — you knew there was a “but” coming, right? — that the apparent or proximate issue in the Ukraine scandal is the true, underlying issue. I’m not sure that’s a safe assumption. Was it really Trump’s attempt “to use his authority as president to pressure foreign countries to criminalize his opponents” that pushed the whistleblower forward? Or was it rather the fact that Trump was going rogue on foreign policy, in an area (Russia vs. Ukraine) that is of intense interest to the national-security establishment of both parties but is almost never discussed or debated in public?

All these things can be true, in the realm of “through a glass, darkly.” Donald Trump has committed numerous impeachable offenses, and after the Mueller report fizzled out had clearly gotten cocky about it. He said some truly dumbass things on the phone with the Ukrainian president, no doubt egged on by Giuliani and his moonbat friends, and White House flunkeys made a desperate attempt to cover that up. The CIA whistleblower — I agree with Taibbi's suggestion that he is best understood as part of a team — seized on an opportunity to weaponize the objectively disastrous Zelensky phone call, in a way that appealed to different factions of the anti-Trump coalition for different reasons.

the fact that trump is recklessly and randomly making foreign policy decisions that depart from the historical stances of the US is terrifying. i am sympathetic to figures in the national security world who are trying to stop this mayhem. but at the same time, i don't think those people are "good." they're at best more predictable than trump. i don't want them to have unilateral authority to dispense with a future president who might depart from the party line for real reasons.

i think this is what's confusing people about russiagate and ukrainegate.

i'm quoting o'heir here not taibbi btw. o'heir takes a middle line between taibbi and, like, mainstream liberals in the vein of the "mueller she wrote" podcast

I like the O'Hehir piece but I think he misses the main thrust of my distaste for intelligence-community shenanigans, which is that if they're successful they will 1000% repeat this process with an even nominally leftist president (if that ever happens). At this point I'd much prefer to see him voted out, though I'm fine with Senate proceedings keeping him occupied.

fbclid=IwAR3Uw5sQyL-h4t1qJ-7yxWY6vubZknda875toEURP8MlnD4ChruA5MkGAY4

fbclid=IwAR3Uw5sQyL-h4t1qJ-7yxWY6vubZknda875toEURP8MlnD4ChruA5MkGAY4

fbclid=IwAR3Uw5sQyL-h4t1qJ-7yxWY6vubZknda875toEURP8MlnD4ChruA5MkGAY4

We had the Danish prime minister forced to resign in 93, and the country survived.

We had the prime minister straight up fired by the queen's human representative for being progressive, and replaced by the opposition leader, and we sort of survived. (Apologies to treeship, who has previously argued that this did not happen and my country does not exist.)

The premier of my state had to resign over accepting one single bottle of wine as a thank-you gift and not registering it. (Dude that replaced him promptly enacted a law that closed over 400 nightclubs, bars and music venues in the city in order to drive people to the one (privately-owned) casino, bankrupted every restaurant and shop that stayed open past midnight, and quit to take a lobbying job with an investment bank before he ever had to contest an election, so jury's out on how much of a victory over corruption that was.)

sic, you're misremembering. i said i didn't know about that event and i think i even thanked you for informing me?

but whatever. sorry for the fb tags.

@Simon: The thing is, that is honestly thinking of them as way too benign. If they could, they would have done so with every president to the left of Eisenhower before. Heck, it's what Comey did to Hilary. The reason they can take down Trump is because he has given them the ammo to do so. Because he is a criminal idiot who keeps doing impeachable things.

I feel like I should know sic's story. Is it Australia?

Another one: Thatcher forced out by anti-EU forces in her own party. That one is similar to what would happen in the US, since Pence would take over. In Denmark, the conservative prime minister literally just gave up and gave power to the social democrats. No election or anything. In hindsight, it really is quite remarkable.

Another one: The Italian Trump was just removed from government by a center-left coalition, instead of having elections and let the people decide, and it's good.

To return to the original question: Is Trump being impeached because he’s a threat to democracy, or because he’s an overly obvious threat to democracy, too stupid or too stubborn to play the game by the rules? It's not difficult, of course it's because he is overly obvious, no? If he was better at it, there wouldn't be enough evidence for even Nancy Pelosi to act.

good enemies

― a Mets fan who gave up on everything in the mid '80s (Dr Morbius)

You support the Trump administration too?

also my enemies

fuck em all

lol Taibbi 'supports Trump' now eh

the Democratic Party's *darling* surrender on single-payer has me on the cancer expressway to the fuckin' poorhouse

I was just in need of clarification after you decided to carve out part of my sentence so you could prop up Taibbi's ludicrous position

reminder that Taibbi wrote a book titled Insane Clown President

but that was two years ago; clearly he's now the Bannon of Rolling Stone

lol Taibbi 'supports Trump' now eh

Taibbi is rich enough now that it doesn't matter to him who's president.

reminder that Taibbi wrote a book titled Insane Clown President

The key word being "Clown" - it's all so amusing, don't you know.

I feel like I should know sic's story. Is it Australia?

If you have time and can cope with 4:3 cropped into widescreen, George Miller produced, co-wrote, and co-directed a 3 x feature-length miniseries about the events in 1983

(shot by Dean Semler, co-directed by Philip Noyce)

cute non sequitur xxp

you might want to take issue with ilx then, and its apprec of gallows humor

x-post: Does it have a talking pig in it? Otherwise I'm not a fan of Miller.

yes, its name is John Kerr

7yxWY6vubZknda875toEURP8MlnD4ChruA5MkGAY4

this is really good

― treeship., Monday, October 14, 2019

It's not.

yeah, it's pretty bad.

The whistleblower whose complaint against Trump has led to an official impeachment inquiry is a CIA agent. Let's just sit a moment with that, shall we?

this line of argument is so fucking dumb. dan ellsberg worked for the pentagon and the rand corporation, ed snowden worked for the CIA (as a subcontractor), and mark felt held the second-highest position at the FBI. does andrew o'hehir know what a "whistleblower" is?

shall we?

The only reason to cite the connection of the whistleblower to the CIA would be to bring their credibility into doubt. But the WH released a transcript of the phone conversation, so we now have ample and reliable evidence of the crime, coming not from the CIA, but direct from the WH. Consequently, at this point in the proceedings the whistleblower's credibility is kind of not a question any more. As for their motive for exposing Trump as a criminal, who the fuck cares?