Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

What did Nixon do that was so bad? He apparently didn’t even know about the watergate break in until after the fact, right? It was the cover up and the lengths he went to do it.

I haven’t reread the watergate saga recently but Trump = Nixon seems basically evident.

And it wasn’t the worst thing Trump has done, it just clear that obstruction was what Mueller feels is the strongest case against Trump. I didn’t realize obstruction of justice, including demanding falsified documents and witness tampering, isn't a serious crime. But like Al Capone— the worst thing he did wasn’t tax evasion, but it was what they could nail him on — we know Trump has done worse and has the capacity to do far far worse from here.

As a political matter, however, I’m closer to the skeptics about the advisability of following this path, given that Senate Republicans will not vote to convict.

Let me try to explain my feelings about Russian interference, absent my usual hyperbole. There are aspects that I don't think are particularly important, and aspects that I do think are important.

Not important: As an excuse for Clinton losing the election. She ran a very flawed campaign on many levels. No need to rehash. But my concern about Russian interference has nothing to do with her losing. Apologists for Russian interference claim that Ds or liberals are using it as an excuse, and attack it on those grounds. Well fine, attack it on those grounds, but that's not the central issue. Portraying it as the only issue is a classic Republican tactic, like saying all Ds expressing disagreement with current border policy want open borders. If you believe that one, there's not much point in reading further.

Also not important: Russians used social media to influence voters. That happened, it was state sponsored, and it led to a number of indictments. Note I am not saying it's evidence of Trump doing something illegal (I'll get to that later). Bottom line for me is American voters would have been just as misled if the huge number of fake news posts and Russian bots on social media had originated with a domestic entity. I do believe that we should resist external influence in our elections but it's ultimately on the voter to distinguish what's important. It bothered me more that the Ds were unable to counter the onslaught of fake stories and our media bought into much of it than any umbrage at it's originating from Russia.

What IS important: Russia made a concerted effort to meddle. They succeeded on the social media front. Whether they changed enough minds to make a difference in 2016 is not the point, and as far as we know they didn't change the way votes were recorded in the ballot boxes. This time. I firmly believe that they will keep trying, and will indeed try to access the internal workings of the voting machines. That must be countered.

Another aspect that matters, but may be a losing argument in the coming campaign: Trump campaign personnel were up to their eyeballs in Russian "contacts." Does it prove anything? No. "Contact" can mean anything, as Marcs points out. But the sum of the evidence, the timing of the Wikileaks releases, the statements from Guliana and Trump himself made it clear that the campaign welcomed the Russian help. Again, water under the bridge as to whether it made a difference in the outcome. Not my point. Did they co-ordinate? Conspire? Not enough evidence. Certainly not enough evidence that Trump tried to co-ordinate. I have no idea if he's capable of that. Provable or not, it doesn't take a tin foil hat to believe that the Trump campaign welcomed Russian help.

Jim asked for examples of criminal behavior on the part of Trump. Obstruction of justice. I'm no expert, but IF you can be convicted of obstruction even if you are unsuccessful, I believe all the elements are there. Is that going to make a difference? Unlikely until he is out of office. He won't be convicted by 2/3 of the Senate under any circumstances. So we have to vote him out.

I was about to say what DavidG has mentioned as a start. Obstruction of Justice...

John Dean knew what went on with Nixon, and he himself said that what Don committed was no less. Not that we have to follow what he has to say without proper thought... But if it is indictable for Mueller (which he said he was hamstrung by guidelines), then it is fair to say that his behavior was criminal of nature... If Mueller could say that as a special counsel with so many roadblocks put up by DOJ, it could only be worse if it were an independent counsel...

I’m sorry, I love you guys like brothers, but you have not even begun to come close to making the nuclear, blow up the country case for the extreme, extreme recourse of impeachment and removal of a nationally elected president.

Give up this tired pipe dream of Trump and Russia. I could care two shits what John Dean thinks. Ain’t gonna happen braus. Spend your precious energies on getting a Democrat elected in 2020.

Jim, you're arguing against a position I haven't taken. Impeachment doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, though at this point I would say those reasons are more political than legal.

The best and only way to be rid of Trump is to defeat him at the polls in 2020. We can see whether the allegations of criminal behavior are provable after he's out.

Well, come on, David, you haven't called for his impeachment but you've baically said something worse:

Jim asked for examples of criminal behavior on the part of Trump. Obstruction of justice.

You've basically said he commited a serious federal felony for which he should be incarcerated in a federal penitentiary.

When did he obstruct justice? On what date? Time? To whom? How? Where?
Tell me specfically when/where/how he "obstructed justice." Tell me who witnessed it.
Is there docuentary evdence? Audio? Visual?

And this whole notion that a sitting president is going to be prosecuted and possibly imprisoned for federal crimes AFTER he leaves the presidency.
Haaaahaaaahaaaa.
That is one of the most ridiculous mainstream media fake news ideas of them all...
Really? DJT is gonna leave office and be federally indicted?
Reaaaallly?
i mean come on, dudes, you been watching WAY too much Rachel Maddow now.

I'll bet anyone on this web site my entire collection of Calon Segur that Orange Head will be neither impeached NOR federally indicted <rolls eyes> after he leaves office.

I believe Trump obstructed justice when he fired Comey and when he tried to fire Mueller. I wouldn't be surprised if there were other examples. Will he be indicted for that after leaving office? Or convicted? Depends on who is willing to talk and how badly prosecutors want it. I also believe Trump's organization has been involved in criminal bribes and money laundering. Will he be indicted or convicted of that? No idea. He’s got a lot of connections and resources that make him harder to bring down than the typical criminal. There is, as your post mockingly points out, a wide gap between culpability and indictability or convictability.

Yes, innocent until proven guilty. Fine for the legal system. The court of public opinion is a different story, and guarantees this country will remain badly divided for at least a few more years. Trump doesn’t need to be convicted for me to believe he's guilty. I believe OJ did it, too.

As to Rachel Maddow, I think I’ve listened to her show 3 or 4 times. I have yet to make it past 5 minutes, so I’ve never actually heard her get to an actual point.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree that the firing of James Comey is a "federal crime" that warrants indictment and possible incarceration of a president.
Anyway, I'm not trying to be a dink here. I just think that there is a country out here outside of Washington and the big, liberal metropolitan areas that is not for impeachment. I think the Democrats are making the exact same mistakes they made when they lost to Orange Head in 2016.

I thought this was a good article this weekend by Maureen Dowd:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/27/opin ... e=Homepage

There was an even better article in the WSJ this weekend that I can't find right now, the premise being that DJT is not as conservative as the Democrats are making him out to be and they are way over-swinging to the left, thus playing right into Orange head's little hands.

As convinced as I am that Trump is a criminal, I am equally uncertain of the best way to campaign against him. I share your concern about the Ds going too far left or dying on the hill of "purity." I’m not so sure that running a negative campaign against Trump would fail. Yes, there has to be a reasonable candidate with reasonable policies for voters to choose.

However, I disagree with Dowd when she writes that everyone who voted for Trump in 2016 really knew what kind of person he was. There were a lot of people who said wait and see, he'll be more Presidential once in office. The question is: how many of those people who voted for Trump or third party will have changed their mind? Will they outnumber those who support his racist policies but didn’t vote in 2016 and are now energized to vote in 2020?

Two years ago I would have been confident that many people who would "come to their senses" and vote against Trump once they saw his true colors as long as they were presented with a reasonable candidate. The mid-term elections gave me hope that we’d already seen the worst that the racist vote could do in 2016. That 2018 energized more anti-Trumpers to get out and vote. But mid-terms have lower turnouts and people don’t always vote for their Congressional representatives for the same reasons they vote for President. I share your concern about the Ds being able to present a candidate acceptable to those "let’s shake things up, Trump will settle down once in office" voters and get enough non-racist voters to cast a ballot.

I disagree that demonizing Trump would be the same mistake Clinton made in 2016. She made the mistake of attacking Trump supporters ("deplorables") but never effectively attacked Trump. If anything she turned people off by campaigning on her policies. She made a big mistake by ignoring the upper Midwest and the electoral college. Ds have to learn from those mistakes. In addition to presenting a decent candidate and campaigning with an awareness of the electoral college, they have to effectively attack Trump. They are up against an expert and a long established, well oiled propaganda machine.

Found that WSJ article:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-psycho ... opin_pos_1

Democrats better realize they have to mobilize the AA vote. That constituency was taken for granted by HC and so didn't show up at the polls. Fortunately for the Demos, Trump continues to issue veiled (or not so veiled) racial comments. Get the black vote out and the Democrats with luck will win control of Congress or at least retain the House and dump trump. Otherwise.....

Good article, thanks for the link. It does make some sense of the swing to the left. Of course a lot of what’s said in primary season gets dialed back in the general. I welcome thoughtful if apparently radical policy positions like the GND. It’s aspirational. Much of it is unrealistic. But it gets us thinking and talking about possibilities. Or it should if we can avoid screaming at each other over the details. The sound bites will be out there, though for the opposition to take advantage of.

I agree with the author is that Trump is a lot more complex to be defined with a single label. I disagree that most progressives see Trump as the embodiment of conservatism. Maybe the rabidly, idealistically "pure" do. Most progressives I know don’t think Trump is a conservative at all, certainly not fiscally. But then the GOP hasn’t been fiscally conservative.

The cable news medium's pusillanimous excuse-making coverage of Trump doesn’t help. This morning the CNN anchors concluded their discussion of Trump's latest racist rants by wondering if his greater purpose was to provoke thoughtful debate about race relations. Journalists my ass.

If we are getting the government we deserve, I’m truly frightened by what we’ve become.

And to Jay: yes, another of Clinton’s major mistakes was taking the AA vote for granted. Another major opportunity for improvement.

"A few days ago, Trump said that a tariff on French wine was indeed on the table. ““I’ve always liked American wines better than French wines,” he gave as a reason. “Even though I don’t drink wine. I just like the way they look.” Yesterday, the French minister of agriculture Didier Guillaume called Trump’s threats “absurd” and “stupid.” from terroirist.com

More great insight.

Invite DJT to the next DC BWE event and see whether he really likes US wine over French wine. Double blind Cali Cab vs. Bordeaux. Maybe this time he will make a judgement call with pertinent information rather than shooting from the hip. The proof is in the pudding.

brodway wrote:Invite DJT to the next DC BWE event and see whether he really likes US wine over French wine. Double blind Cali Cab vs. Bordeaux. Maybe this time he will make a judgement call with pertinent information rather than shooting from the hip. The proof is in the pudding.

Waste of time. We already know he'd vote for the California wines. He told us he prefers the way they look.

The reason? He can read words like "Ridge," "Pride," and "Screaming Eagle." Can you see him attempting "Haut Brion" or "Margaux?"

Now if we had a Pouilly Fuissé, he'd grab it.

That last line is the funniest thing you've said, David!

I'll vote for a flea infested mangy dog before Orange Head.
But I'll hold my nose hard before voting for Kamala.

I actually kind of like the Castro kid, I didn't think I was going to like him.
At this point, though, I'm for the old dude Joe.

I'm about to turn 61.
I don't want to wish my life away, but I can't WAIT until I get my Medicare card.

Liz Warren for president, baby. And I still say I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat. Can't be any worse than Orange Head.
But n the end old Uncle Joe will win, and I'm more than happy with that as well.
Other than Joe, Liz, and Bernie, the rest of the Dems are pretty much lightweights.

I like Mayor Pete. I don't think he can beat Trump but he was well prepared last night.

I like Mayor Pete too. I like all of them, except for Kamala. And I'm not big on Klobuchar either.

JimHow wrote:I like Mayor Pete too. I like all of them, except for Kamala. And I'm not big on Klobuchar either.

Sums up my feelings too. I do worry about Biden slipping though.

Please, Biden is visibly disintegrating in public and we still have well over a year to go till the election. Guy is embarassing.

If I lived in a state that mattered, I'd vote for Biden or Sanders over Trump. Here in MD, I might stay home if either of them were on the ballot. Biden lacks the cognitive power to be a good President. He’d probably do ok because he’d let his staff and Cabinet guide him. Sanders' angry man BS and obfuscation has become too much for me and feel his rigidity and dishonesty are way ahead of the rest of the pack. He’s a zealot. And he’s not a Democrat. Not a fan of Harris but I’d have no trouble voting for her over Trump. I like Warren, Castro, Klobuchar, Buttigieg.

Jesus the Democrats can't afford to screw this up.

Well, I was being diplomatic about Biden and acknowledging I have no idea what he’s really like off the stage. For sure, the evidence we do have looks bad though.

Of course, all but hard core MAGA members (perhaps 35% of the populace?) will either vote for anyone from last night’s stage over Trump or skip voting/vote for the Libertarian candidate.

Okay, so you can only pick one, what is your "Dream Ticket" (among existing Democratic candidates)?
You can base your decision on any criteria, like, who are the most qualified, who are the most electable, etc...

For me, I'm going to weigh heavily on "most electable" just because of the threat posed by Orange Head and the Republicans in Congress.

I'll go with:

Elizabeth Warren / Pete Buttigieg

She's a fighter, I've always liked her a lot, obviously very intelligent, and she's grown on me even more during this campaign.
I didn't think she was going to be able to, but I think she has swatted away the "Pocahantas" slur.
I think she would drive Orange Head crazy.

And I think Mayor Pete is a little outside the box but perhaps he wins us Indiana, he's very solid intellectually, very mature, kind of "likeable."
I think his sexual orientation will be a complete non-issue, at least in the states that matter.

Joe & Pete would be a more electable ticket IMO.

duplicate post -- delete

Mine would be Sanders and Warren, then a gap, then Tulsi Gabbard, then another gap, then Cory Booker. I don't understand why Booker doesn't get more traction honestly. Former tight end for Stanford, similar resume to Buttigieg except more impressive and more experienced.

None of the others impress me at all. Sure they are all better than Trump -- just because they are Democrats they would carry a different group into power -- but they all read as opportunists or mediocre. I don't get the appeal of Buttigieg, he reads to me like a college student trying to brown nose his way into class president. Maybe he makes older rich people think he's the son they would like to have? Certainly a great fundraiser.

I think Warren is in a very good position to take it. Bernie has a very loyal following and he has rock-solid integrity and trustworthiness (something you can't say for most of the rest), I believe if he had been nominated in 2016 he would have won the election and I believe he could still beat Trump. Such a solid and authentic person, he has consistently been delivering the same message for like fifty years. But he's very old and may be too divisive. Warren has more substance and track record than the rest and she is extremely sharp, brilliant even. I would love a Sanders-Warren or Sanders-Gabbard ticket or Warren-Booker ticket.

My choice would be a Warren-Booker ticket. Or what about Warren-Abrams? They’d be tough to beat.

I was thinking about Tulsi Gabbard tonight, she impressed me, I wonder why she didn't generate at least a little more excitement.
I'm not a big Booker fan, I know they are all ambitious, he just seems at the top of the list to me.
You are right that Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, he would have captured those 3 or 4 states. It just feels like his moment passed him.
I still don't quite get why DavidG gets so animated against Bernie. Bernie is radical, but who is the bigger threat to America, Mike Pence or Bernie Sanders? To me the answer is obvious.

You know, all these dynamics are gonna start changing after the first of the year, when certain candidates win Iowa, NH, and it shifts to SC, and Florida, etc., and the momentum for 2 or 3 candidates starts to crystalize, and money dries up, etc.

JimHow wrote:I was thinking about Tulsi Gabbard tonight, she impressed me, I wonder why she didn't generate at least a little more excitement.
I'm not a big Booker fan, I know they are all ambitious, he just seems at the top of the list to me.
You are right that Bernie would've beaten Trump in 2016, he would have captured those 3 or 4 states. It just feels like his moment passed him.
I still don't quite get why DavidG gets so animated against Bernie. Bernie is radical, but who is the bigger threat to America, Mike Pence or Bernie Sanders? To me the answer is obvious.

You know, all these dynamics are gonna start changing after the first of the year, when certain candidates win Iowa, NH, and it shifts to SC, and Florida, etc., and the momentum for 2 or 3 candidates starts to crystalize, and money dries up, etc.

Gabbard was blackballed and the debate selection criteria were manipulated to deliberately exclude her. She is ahead of quite a number of the people in yesterday's debate in the polls, but whenever she did well in a poll that poll was dropped from the debate metrics. Hell, I think on polling average she is ahead of Harris in New Hampshire! Gabbard represents a real threat to the system because she is very committed to questioning foreign interventions.

I agree with you that Bernie may just have missed his moment. It's tragic given what happened. Next time you are in DC Jim remind me to tell you about the semi-insider cocktail party I went to a few days after the election. BTW, a lot of the 2016 Bernie folks are very pissed at Warren for not endorsing Bernie, they believe that if she had they could have beaten Clinton and Warren could have been on the ticket. Don't think that comes from Bernie, I think the two of them get along well, but honestly they have a point. I also think Warren could possibly have won herself in 2016. She chickened out. The tragedy of 2016 is Clinton driving everyone else out of the race due to ambition when her time had clearly passed.

Not sure the VP pick matters, unless it's someone completely unqualified like Palin. I don't think favorite sons/daughters have much pull with today's polarized electorate.

I like Warren for the top spot but worry about her electability due to her seemingly rigid Medicare For All stand. That worries me more than her tax policy. Everyone worries about health care and it will be easy for Trump and the Rs to scare the crap out of them over elimination of insurance as they know it. Most of the electorate shouldn't care about increasing taxes on the rich, but the Ds have to do a better job of convincing them of the Rs lies about taxes, the economy, and debt.

I like Klobuchar even more than Warren. She's so far behind in the polls and I don't know if she's got the persona/charisma to win.

Sanders and Biden will be sitting ducks for the Rs. I cringe at the likelihood of another 4 years of Trump if either of them are the nominee.

Marcs, you're spinning conspiracy theories about Gabbard? Can we expect her to join Sanders in undermining the nominee if neither of them are on the ticket? A lot of Clinton supporters believe she would have won the election if Sanders had rallied his troops. I guess that's just sour grapes when it comes from Clinton supporters, but it's justifiable outrage coming from the Sanders supporters?

They all strike me as blabbering lightweights
I agree with a lot of the problems but the implementation proposed is big government as opposed to common sense.
1.Medicare for all: An enlightened society should provide health care for its citizens. Why is that even open for debate? There must be a way to make the medical insurers, the health care providers and the drug companies pay.
2.Immigration: I firmly believe that immigrants come here to work and contribute. If there are a few evildoers we should be able to spot them. We have the technology.
3.Assault weapons: yes to Beto's proposal. Confiscate them all. What a ridiculous interpretation of the 2nd Amendment the NRA is.
4.Education: It's ridiculous that colleges should be able to charge hundreds of thousands of dollars in tuition and yet not pay taxes and have billions in endowments. That's just a line change in the tax code. Not subsidize college tuition!
5. Inequality: yes obviously raise taxes on the rich. The problem is this gang thinks making $200k a year for a family of four is rich, that was just $30k in 1970. That's poverty in NYC in 2019.
6. Get a grip on inflation: My starter salary in the mid eighties was $21k and I had $8k in student loans, in today's dollars that's about $60k. My daughter after four years of college graduating summa cum laude was started at $32k last year, most students have about $75-$100k in student loans. That's preposterous! How can kids expect to be independent? Pay off college loans? Buy a house? Start a family?

And so on and so on. Instead of dealing with these issues with some decent proposals, these guys are talking taxes on middle class families (disguised as taxes on the rich), spending and subsidies, treating the voters like children and talking down at them. That's what is going to get Trump another four years. Ugh!

Bill Maher: I love the discussion towards the end about how Orange Head ain't going nowhere in 2020, win or lose:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwWKVdHSRqs

I mean, seriously, picture the reverse of 2016, where Orange loses instead of wins in MI, WI, and PA by 15,000 votes, or a large turnout for the Dems in the Milwaukee suburbs, or less than 1% in PA after a 90% turnout for the Dems in Philly. Do we really think he is going to vacate the White House following such an obviously rigged election, perpetrated by the deep state and the fake news media?

Then it comes to the Supreme Court. I and most Americans will accept what the Supreme Court decides. If he loses, he's out. It will take a lot for me to believe the Supreme Court is also corrupt, maybe Clarence Thomas, but he's such a nobody, he'll follow.