Sunday, December 22, 2019

Suggested statement for Sen. Jones

SUGGESTED STATEMENT FOR SENATOR JONES TO ISSUE RE IMPEACHMENT

The House of Representatives has not yet transmitted their articles of impeachment to the United States Senate, and no trial in the Senate has yet begun. Further my role will be as a juror in the Senate trial.

I am issuing this statement at this time because I think my juror role partakes of representing the people of Alabama, and they should be informed about my thinking about the impeachment and the reasons that I have for the way I vote in the Senate trial.

There is already known evidence that will be relevant in the trial, and additional relevant evidence may become known in the trial.

The impeachment has brought to the fore important matters about our nation's governance, which should be emphasized for Alabamians to have in their understanding of the impeachment.

These matters include, and I think Alabamians understand, that public officials are supposed to serve the public interest and not wrongfully serve their personal interests, and that applies to the POTUS.

Also I think Alabamians understand that, under the constitution, we have a system of separation of powers, in which there are checks and balances.

In the system, Congress, as the legislative branch, makes the laws, the President is the head of the executive branch, which carries out the laws, and the judicial branch interprets the laws.

In the system's checks and balances, Congress does oversight of the executive branch, including  investigating how its laws are being carried out by the executive branch and whether, under the law, something is done wrongfully by the President or others in the executive branch.

As regards the Ukraine, there is evidence that the POTUS wrongfully put his personal political interests ahead of the national interests of the United States.

Judging wrongfulness in the case of the Ukraine entails determining the facts about what was done and determining what the motive of the POTUS was for what he did and had others do.

Wrongfulness comes in degrees, and a motive can be a real or a pretext motive, and there can also be mixed motives.

As a juror in the Senate trial, and in deciding whether to vote to convict or not, I intend, based on the evidence, to come to a judgment about whether the POTUS wrongfully put his personal political interests ahead of United States national interest, and, if so, the degree of the wrongfulness. This judgment will depend on further judgment that I intend to make about the motive of the POTUS in doing what he did and had others do.

I solicit from Alabamians to convey to me what they think about whether the POTUS acted wrongfully, and, if so, what Alabaminas think about the degree of the wrongfulness, including what they think the motive of the POTUS was in doing what he did or had others do.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, December 17, 2019

AL Impeach & Remove

Dear Alabama Impeach & Remove participants:

There are nationwide Impeach & Remove events scheduled for 5:30 pm today, per https://www.impeach.org/event/impeach-and-remove-attend/search/?logo, and Birmingham and Huntsville have events.

May these events be built on to sway Alabama opinion with a view to the Senate trial.

The below talking points
1. Donald Trump bribed a foreign country
2. To interfere in our election
3, He must be impeached and removed
4, Because no one is above the law
are discussed on the website at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i8xIwx-gLmTEHqqGARKijdtUjK8Ta0s3EgokQ2SHI48/edit

The Alabama GOP in Congress and the Alabama Republican Party are in the thrall of Trump, they cannot acknowledge publicly the seriousness of the impeachment, and they are desperately dismissive of it, such as Bradley Byrne calling the articles of impeachment "laughable"

This is disserving Alabama by impeding Alabamians from learning the seriousness of the impeachment, by stoking their anger at the Dems higher, and by risking civil explosion if Trump is no longer President.

While Bradley Byrne calls the impeachment laughable, he discerns there is no end in sight to the battle over Trump, saying
“This fight on impeachment . . . doesn’t mean the fight is over when the Senate votes. This fight is going to go on and on and on and on. They’re not going to stop. So, we better be ready to gird up our loins and get in this fight and win it. But to do that, you have got to have a fighter.”“
ttps://yellowhammernews.com/byrne-takes-jabs-at-sessions-tuberville-at-hamilton-campaign-appearance-i-dont-see-another-fighter-in-this-race/

The fight over Trump intensified today, and will intensify more tomorrow when the House passes articles of impeachment against Trump.

Alabama Impeach & Remove participants should  battle the Alabama GOP in the coming weeks and weaken them through getting them to acknowledge publicly the seriousness of the impeachment.

The Alabama GOP  speaks in simplistic ways, such as Mueller was a hoax and a witch hunt, and refuses to discuss impeachment with people who don't share their views and who don't speak in their simplistic ways.

A main reason for this is that Trump is adamant that he has done nothing wrong, the Alabama GOP fears crossing Trump, the Alabama GOP is afraid of saying or acknowledging things that are at variance from Trump, and not talking with Alabamians who have differing views aids the Alabama GOP in keeping away from being drawn into saying things that are at variance from Trump.

It is daunting to overcome the resistance of the Alabama GOP to talk to Alabamians who have differing views.

There are many ways to come at the Alabama GOP.

I have tried the following:
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/10/appeal-to-al-news-directors.html
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/10/al-project-veritas-impeachment.html
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/11/silos-in-al-politics.html
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/12/mashow995-call-in.html
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/12/will-us-fall-apart.html
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/12/impeachment-questions.html

The refusal of the Alabama GOP to have conversation is manifested at the personal level, such the below tweet I sent, which received no response
I will keep on the Alabama GOP in the coming weeks.

May Alabama participants in today's nationwide Impeach & Remove events find ways to battle against the Alabama GOP in the coming weeks to force them to acknowledge and confront the seriousness of the impeachment.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, December 15, 2019

Impeachment questions

DRAFT
In  follow up  to Appeal to AL news directors and AL Project Veritas - Impeachment, an endeavor will be made to obtain answers to the questions set out below from Alabama's GOP members of Congress and to report below said answers that are obtained from them. This endeavor will be made by directly putting the questions to such members of Congress and by reference to questions put by Alabama political news media that receive answers that I am able to determine.
The below questions and their answers seem very relevant and important for Alabamians to judge the Trump impeachment matter. Views of those in the Alabama political news media and of other Alabamians are solicited about the relevance and importance of the below questions and about suggestions for other questions to put in below list.


Impeachment questions for AL GOP members of Congress 
1. a. Do you believe the POTUS has an obligation to tell the truth to the American people?
b. If yes, do you believe Trump has satisfactorily fulfilled said obligation to tell the truth to the American people?

Answers: 

2. a, Do you believe that, in order to do his or her job, the POTUS needs to have the trust of the American people? 
b. If yes, do you believe Trump has the trust of the American people to an adequate degree in order to do his job as POTUS?

Answers: 





3. a, Do you believe that good governance of, by and for the people in the United States needs good faith, bipartisan efforts to ascertain and agree on relevant facts?
b. If yes, do you believe the POTUS has an obligation to promote those efforts?
c. If yes, do you believe Trump has satisfactorily promoted those efforts?

Answers: 




4. Do you believe, in exercising Presidential powers, the POTUS is obligated to have proper motives and there is such a thing as a "corrupt" motive that can make a Presidential decision or action impeaachable? Or, alternatively expressed, do you believe the POTUS may exercise Presidential powers for any motives the POTUS chooses, proper or improper, and there is no such thing as a "corrupt" motive of the POTUS that can make a decision or action impeachable?

Answers: 




5. Applying your answer to question 4, do you think, based on what is known, and subject to further information, there is a legitimate question about whether Trump did something wrong regarding Ukraine because Trump had an improper motive for what he did regarding Ukraine? Or alternatively expressed, do you believe that Trump did nothing wrong regarding Ukraine because Trump could do what he did for any motive, "proper" or "improper"?

Answers: 
Rep. Palmer says Trump did nothing wrong ("totally above board") https://video.aptv.org/video/december-13-2019-xlcskb/ at 53:58.

Rep. Byrne says Trump did nothing wrong (request for Ukraine to investigate Bidens "appropriate") https://abc3340.com/news/local/congressman-byrne-articles-of-impeachment-are-laughable






6. Regarding other exercises of Presidential powers apart from Ukraine, do you believe the POTUS may exercise Presidential powers to benefit himself or herself personally regardless of how and to what extent it is detrimental to the public interest or national interest of the American people and the United States?

Answers: 





7. a, Do you think the POTUS needs to be able to differentiate between his personal interests and the public or national interest, and be able to make judgments about whether Presidential decisions or action will  improperly put personal interest ahead of public or national interests?
b. If yes, do you think Trump's extreme narcissism impairs him in having the foregoing abilities?
c. Also, if yes, do you think Trump choosing to keep his conflicts of interest and to use his Presidential office to benefit his private business interests impaired Trump having the foregoing abilities?





8. Do  you thing Tump's business history that he was never accountable to anyone, such as a board of directors or shareholders, and Trump did whatever he wanted, has impaired his ability to accommodate to separation of powers and checks and balances under the constitution?



9..
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, December 10, 2019

Will U.S. fall apart

Will the United States fall apart?

What will Trump do to Americans who are scum if Trump is reelected President in November 2020? Will he try to vaporize them?


Whom will Trump shake down next?
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, December 9, 2019

Rep. Elissa Slotkin D-MI

The Honorable Elissa Slotkin,
Democrat, Michigan 8th Congressional district
United States House of Representatives

Dear Rep. Slotkin,

This communication is prompted by your below words reported this past weekend in the USAToday article Why moderates are holding back on impeachment:
"I feel very strongly that in my prior life we often went to other countries and foreign governments when I was at the Pentagon and said, 'We want you to do X in exchange for Y,' but that exchange was exclusively for the national security interests of the country, not for Elissa Slotkin's personal or political gain," said Slotkin, who hasn't committed one way or the other on impeachment. "And that's a pretty fundamental difference and that was the conversation I had with one of my peers."
Your words prompted me to suggest to Alabama members of Congress and candidates for Congress that they should ponder your words. Below is a tweet I sent to Rep. Mike Rogers.
I will add to this communication as appropriate.

Robert Shattuck
Birmingham, AL



Commentary 12/19/2019
There was no significant agreement about anything between Dems and GOP in yesterday's House debate of the articles of impeachment.There was no back and forth exploration of reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, and the general tenor of the speakers was "your side is wrong, our side is right, and there is no reasonably debatable question about whether Trump should be impeached or not, with Dems saying he absolutely must be impeached to save our republic and GOP saying it is an absolute travesty that impeachment is being sought.
I believe there are reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, which are deserving of back and forth exploration.
The articles of impeachment refer to a course of conduct by Trump  "for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit" and abusing powers of Presidency "by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal benefit." 
Yesterday the GOP generally contended that there cannot be an impeachable abuse of power by the POTUS without there being an allegation and proof of a "crime". 
Two days ago, Rep. Collins seemed to acknowledge there can be an impeachable abuse of power by the POTUS, but, when asked about hypothetical acts by the POTUS, Rep. Collins declined to be drawn into discussion about hypothetical acts and insisted on focusing only on what happened with Trump and Ukraine and the same was not an impeachable abuse of power by Trump.



Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, December 5, 2019

MAShow995 call in

[Addendum 12/18/19
To MAShow995:
There has been no significant agreement about anything between Dems and GOP in today's House debate of the articles of impeachment.There has been no back and forth exploration of reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, and the general tenor of the speakers has been "your side is wrong, our side is right, and there is no reasonably debatable question about whether Trump should be impeached or not, with Dems saying he absolutely must be impeached to save our republic and GOP saying it is an absolute travesty that impeachment is being sought.
I believe there are reasonably debatable issues about impeachment or not, which are deserving of back and forth exploration.
If you agree with me there are reasonably debatable questions about impeachment or not, I would like to explore them with you or others on your show.
Right now I have a particular question in mind that I would like to explore. I will write the same up and add a link here to the same after I do.
Thanks.]



[12/6/19: Note to MAShow995: Per the way things were left in my call in to the show this morning (http://www.talk995.com/podcasts/ Fri. 12/6 Hour 3 at 31:05)  please read the Summary at the end of this blog entry and let me know whether there is anything in the Summary that you consider worthy of my calling in next week for discussion. Thanks.]

DRAFT
To Matt Murphy: 

As agreed, here is my perspective about what has led to Trump being impeached.

I start with saying I went crazy against Bill Clinton in the 1998 impeachment against him.

Also, I have had a long time bugaboo about the corrupting influence of money in politics.   

After Bill Clinton left the presidency, I gave the Clintons a pass, in part because of the ostensible good works of The Clinton Foundation.

When Hillary Clinton started her 2016 run for President, I became fixated on whether there were conflicts of interest and corrupt use of The Clinton Foundation by the Clintons.

In the first Republican debate in August 2015, candidate Donald Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me," and "that is a broken system."

This was coupled in the 2016 election with whether a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi was to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Trump and Bondi denied that happened.  I was dubious.

Overall, in the 2016 election, Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption.

I voted for Trump on the basis of the corruption issue, but I had doubts about Trump's integrity.

Trump had sprawling business interests, and there was question of whether Trump, if elected President, would have conflicts of interest that would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he was accusing the Clintons of having been corrupt.

An important element in this was Trump's motive in running for President, and whether his motive was genuinely for the good he wanted to do for the the American people ("good motive"), or whether Trump's motive was that the Presidency was an ultimate prize to satisfy Trump's vainglorious, narcissistic love of wealth, power and being the center of attention, and, if he did not win, running for President was a monumental "informercial" for his business that would benefit him after the election was over ("bad motive").

If the latter "bad motive" was Trump's motive, that would incline Trump, if he won, to putting personal interests ahead of the country's interests.

Also, if Trump's motive was a bad motive, Trump would keep that hidden in the election and mislead the voters about his motive.

Trump's nature, and past history and conduct, did not provide confidence about his motive in running for President.

Regardless, Trump's voters in 2016 had to trust that Trump had a "good motive" and not a "bad motive" in running for President.

While Trump's motive was opague in the 2016 election, if Trump won, Trump's actions and conduct after he became President would shed light on his motives  and whether he would put his personal interests ahead of the public interest.

Given how Trump crucified Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest, pay to play and corruption, an early tell about Trump's motives was how Trump chose to deal with his conflicts of interest after he was elected.

Conflicts of interest present a stark choice for whether a public official will serve the public interest or whether the public official will serve his or her personal interest. The mere existence of conflicts of interest can undermine trust in a public official, distract from tending to the public's business if investigations need to done to determine whether the public official is serving his private interests, and otherwise impair the public official's ability to perform his job and particularly, as to the political supporters of the public official, impair the public official's ability to carry out the agenda that such supporters voted for the public official to carry out.

Where a public official has conflicts of interest, it takes an assiduous conscience for the public official to separate in his or her mind his or her private interests from the public interest and make decisions and take actions that the public official can honestly tell himself did not take into account the private interests.

In November 2016, after Trump had won, Trump publicly announced decision that the investigation of Hillary Clinton should not continue. While the United States does not want to be a "banana republic" in which the winners of elections seek to jail their political opponents, Trump could have embarked on a "heart to heart" with the American people related to the charges Trump had leveled against Hillary Clinton and could have launched a significant initiative for new rules for dealing with conflicts of interest to lessen corruption, including better vetting procedures regarding conflicts of interest (perhaps citing inadequate Congressional vetting of the Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation situation). Such an initiative by Trump might have exposed for public consideration the then relatively recent events of the withholding of loans to the Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors or doing consulting for a Ukranian corporation.

My conclusion about why Trump chose not to use his Hillary Clinton as a reason to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington was that Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.

When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.

This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House of Representatives at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight. It can be speculated that the pass Trump was given regarding his business conflicts of interest encouraged him to put his personal interests ahead of the public interest in other ways.

The record of Trump's Presidency presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.

Following their taking control of the House of Representatives in 2018, the Democrats started to make up for two years of failed oversight by the Republicans.

During ten  months of Democratic control of the House, Trump has been adamant that he has the right and power to pursue his conflicts of interest and profit from the Presidency however he chooses.

Perhaps the most significant instance is the Trump Tower Moscow matter. The details of this were hidden from the American people  for two years, and information about it, and the consequences from it, are still unfolding.

While Trump had a legal right to pursue his business interests during the time he was running for President, this was a precursor "conflict of interest" that, in the course of two years, morphed into a huge trust problem for Trump and the country.

The precursor "conflict of interest" was that Trump as a candidate may have been secretly doing and saying things to curry favor with Putin in order to advance his Trump Tower Moscow project, and those things were damaging to the country while Trump was helped personally.

For example, Trump alone in the summer of 2016 was questioning national intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The country's intelligence apparatus is important for national security, and it is important that the country have a legitimate faith in the apparatus so that actions taken based on the apparatus have the support of the country. If Trump undermined that faith by what he said in the 2016 election in order to serve his private interests, that would be very bad for the country and it would engender huge distrust of Trump if this was found out after he became President.

To the extent Trump was currying favor with Putin before the election, after Trump won, he was potentially compromised and subject to blackmail by Putin by reason of what Trump did before the election.

This then gets immensely exacerbated by Trump getting Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.

The upshot of the foregoing is huge damage to the country's trust in Trump, and, if Trump is willing to do the foregoing in service of his private interests and to protect himself, the distrust spills over to many other actions of Trump and what other things Trump may be willing to do to protect himself.

It spilled over to Trump obstructing the Mueller investigation.

It spilled over to Trump's nonstop calling the Mueller investigation a hoax and a witch hunt, when it served legitimate purposes.

It spilled over to Trump dangling pardons.

The day after Mueller gave his testimony, it spilled over to Trump asking Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election for the personal political benefit of Trump.

It has spilled over to Trump's 12,435 false or misleading statements that he has made to the American people since he becoming President. https://washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/…

It has spilled over to Trump stonewalling Congress in the Ukraine investigation.

All of the foregoing feeds into and supports articles of impeachment against Trump for abusing his powers and putting personal interests over the public interest in many ways and instances during Trump's presidency.

Impeachment becomes especially necessary because Trump's adamantly saying he has done no wrong evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests or that he understands but he nonetheless will do so. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from abusing his powers.

Summary
Public officials are supposed to serve the public's interests and not to abuse their public position and wrongfully use their powers to  serve their private interests.

Americans are learning from the Trump impeachment that the  crux of the impeachment is that Trump has abused his public position and wrongfully used his powers to serve his private interests and failed to serve the public interest in numerous ways.

The public or national interests that Trump has failed to properly serve have been various.

Regarding the Ukraine abuse of power, the national and public interests that Trump failed to serve properly are the extremely important interests of national security and the integrity of our elections.

In other instances,  the consequences of Trump putting personal interest ahead of public interest have been less significant individually, but are cumulative in considering the case for impeachment

As the Democrats are emphasizing currently, there has been a patter ofTrump abusing his powers by putting personal interest ahead of public interest, and this did not suddenly happen with Ukraine.

In the impeachment, the American people will learn much about this has been happening ever since Trump took office and it  started with how Trump kept and pursued his business conflicts of interest.

Certain explanations for Trump's record of putting personal interests ahead of public interest need to be considered,

One explanation is Trump's extreme narcissism, which is characterized by the narcissist seeing everything through the lens of him or herself. A narcissist such as Trump views everything that is contrary to himself as evil and wrong, and everything that favors the narcissist is right and good. Such a narcissist is unable to tolerate facts and reality that are contrary to him and he endeavors to create his own reality and facts.

Another factor explaining Trump putting personal interest ahead of the public interest is Trump's business history that he was never was accountable to anyone, such as a board of directors or shareholders, and Trump did whatever he wanted.

As President, Trump has acted in many ways not to be accountable to the American people and not to recognize the separation of powers and checks and balances, and that Article 2 does not give Trump the power to do whatever he wants.

Impeachment becomes especially necessary because of Trump so absolutely saying he has done no wrong. This evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests, or that he understands but he nonetheless will use his powers serve his private interests as he chooses. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and use them to serve his personal interests, and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from abusing his powers.

The totality of the above is what has led to Trump's impeachment. The totality of the above needs to be considered by the United States Senate and by the American people.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, December 3, 2019

Lisa Page

This past week, in his campaign performance regarding Lisa Page, Trump exhibited in spades Trump's sick need to bully, humiliate, insult, dominate and demean other people, in order to gratify Trump's narcissistic lusts for himself.

Academic mental health experts will diagnose Trump's sickness for years to come.

Mental sickness in private is one thing.

When the sickness is on display in front of the world by a President of the United States, it is despicable and embarrassing beyond words.

For Lisa Page, Trump's campaign performance was the "straw that broke the camel's back."   Trump's 'demeaning fake orgasm' made me speak out – ex-FBI lawyer Lisa Page.

May Trump's campaign performance regarding Lisa Page be the "straw that breaks the camel's back" for Alabama women, Republican as well as Democratic and independent women.


Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 19, 2019

Reply to Rep. Byrne

This is a reply to Rep. Byrne's article The Facts About Ukraine. This reply is, in part, in the form of questions for Rep. Byrne.

1. Trump's actual motive and its relevance 

There is a range for what Trump's actual motive might have been.

At one end of the range, Trump possibly had no general interest in Ukraine taking action against Ukranian corruption, and, if the 2016 Crowdstrike theory and the Bidens were not available for Trump to target, Trump would not have put, or tried to put, any conditions on providing the Ukranian security assistance and a White House meeting with Zelenski. Under this scenario of Trump's possible actual motive, Trump's only motive for putting conditions on providing the Ukranian security assistance and a Zelinski White House meeting  was to help himself politically. (In this discussion, such a motive will be sometimes referred to as a "bad" or "corrupt" motive.)

At the other end of the range of possible Trump motive, Trump possibly had a special interest in Ukraine taking action against Ukranian corruption, and Trump's seeking to have Zelenski investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens was to advance that special interest of Trump and was not at all motivated to help himself politically. (In this discussion, such a motive will be sometimes referred to as a "good" motive.)

Actual motive of one person is hard for other persons to determine with certainty.

It may be that Rep. Byrne's position is that Trump's actual motive is irrelevant in the impeachment proceeding.

This may be because Rep.Byrne thinks, no matter what Trump's motive was, Trump had the right and power to do what he did, thus what Trump did was not wrong, and Trump's actual motive (whether a "good" motive or a "bad" motive) cannot be any basis for impeachment.

Alternatively, Rep. Byrne may think Trump's actual motive is not relevant because it is impossible for anyone other than Trump to know with certainty what Trump's motive was, and therefore Trump's actual motive cannot and should not be made a basis for impeachment.

If Rep. Byrne believes Trump's actual motive is not relevant in the impeachment proceeding, Rep. Byrne should expressly say so.

If Rep. Byrne does not say that Trump's actual motive is irrelevant in the impeachment proceeding, that means Trump's actual motive needs to be delved into, and ultimately the U.S. Senate, as the jury, needs to make a determination of what it believes Trump's actual motive was.

2. Determining Trump's actual motive

Many facts and circumstances are possibly relevant for the United States Senate, as jury, to decide what Trump's actual motive was for Trump's seeking to have Zelenski investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

Further, as the jury, it is up to the United States Senate to consider the possibly relevant facts and circumstances and to evaluate the evidence as establishing, or not establishing, the facts and circumstances that the United States Senate thinks are relevant to take into account in reaching its determination about Trump's actual motive.

Much has been brought forth in the three days of public impeachment hearings that the United States Senate could find relevant for determining Trump's actual motive.

A great deal of additional information is potentially relevant for the United States Senate to determine Trump's actual motive.

3. Hunter Biden

In determining Trump's actual motive, Hunter Biden needs to be considered in an historical context of how much candidate Trump said he would take on governmental corruption and "drain the swamp" and whether Trump was dishonest and has been dishonest with the American people about "draining the swamp."

For this purpose, the United States Senate, as jury in the impeachment trial which must decide Trump's actual motive, could consider the following:

In the first Republican debate in August 2015, candidate Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me." (Here's video.)

In the 2016 election candidate Trump crucified Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for conflicts of interest, pay to play and attendant corruption.

At the same time, questions were raised about a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, allegedly to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Since candidate Trump had publicly said he gave to politicians to get them do what he wants, it was reasonable to be suspicious of Trump and Bondi's denials of anything untoward happening. (Here's video.)

Candidate Trump campaigned hard at the close of his campaign that he would "drain the swamp" in Washington DC.

Shortly before Election Day candidate Trump put out a Contract with the American Voter, In this contract, Trump committed to embark immediately on a plan for restoring honesty and accountability, and bringing change to Washington. The Contract proposed six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC. These were:
★ FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
★ SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).
★ THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
★ FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
★ FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
★ SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Trump had a large business empire, and, and after he was elected there was an obvious question of whether Trump's conflicts of interest  would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he had accused the Clintons of having been corrupt.

After Trump won the election, Trump decided that the investigation of Hillary Clinton should not continue. While the United States does not want to be a "banana republic" in which the winners of elections seek to jail their political opponents, Trump could have embarked on a "heart to heart" with the American people related to the charges Trump had leveled against Hillary Clinton and could have launched a significant initiative for new rules for dealing with conflicts of interest to lessen corruption, including better vetting procedures regarding conflicts of interest (perhaps citing inadequate Congressional vetting of the Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation situation). 

Such an initiative by Trump concerning conflicts of interest might have exposed for public consideration the then relatively recent events of the withholding of loans to the Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors or doing consulting for a Ukranian corporation.

All things considered, it was reasonable to think Trump chose not to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington DC because Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.

When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.

This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight.

The record of the past 2-1/2 years presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.

Candidate Trump's FIFTH and SIXTH commitments in his Contract with the American voter were:
★ FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
★ SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
Under President Trump, the country has been living in an excruciating three year mess of trying to learn about and combat foreign interference in American elections, which included the conviction of several Trump associates for crimes involving or related to foreign governments and corruption. This Trump record has belied Trump purporting to have genuine anti-corruption motivations.

The above historical context is something the United States Senate could consider in determining what Trump's actual motive was regarding Ukraine and could contribute to their determining that Trump had a "bad" motive and not a "good" motive for his actions regarding Ukraine.

4. Was it Russia or was it Ukraine?

There are several lines of attack insofar as Trump's defense is that he had a good motive in seeking for the Ukranians to investigate the Crowdstrike allegations of Ukranian interference in the 2016 elections.

The Crowdstrike allegations have been around since 2016 It needs to be explained why it is in 2019 that Trump would seek to withhold security assistance and a White House meeting unless Ukraine undertook, or publicly announced that it would underta,e an investigation of the Crowdstrike allegations.

Consider the history of the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

 INVESTIGATIONS INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTIONS

 House intelligence committee investigation of Russia  (See Ballotpedia  House Intelligence Committee investigation on Russian activity in 2016 presidential election)

 From January 2017 to January 2019, the Republicans were in control of the House of Representatives and the House intelligence committee.

On January 25, 2017, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including possible links between Russia and any political campaigns. The committee further refined the scope of the investigation on March 1, 2017. It sought to answer the following questions:
What Russian active measures, including hacking, were directed against the U.S. and its allies?
Did those active measures include links between Russia and any political campaigns?
How did the U.S. government respond to Russian active measures? How can the U.S. protect itself in the future?
Were there leaks of classified information related to the intelligence community report on Russian activity?
After President Donald Trump released a series of four tweets on March 4, 2017, alleging that former President Barack Obama had his phones and Trump Tower, the headquarters of the Trump Organization, wiretapped during the 2016 presidential election, the investigation was expanded.

The White House requested on March 5, 2017, that the congressional intelligence committees determine whether the executive branch abused its power in 2016 as part of their investigation into Russian activity during the presidential election.

On the same day, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, indicated the committee would include Trump's wiretapping allegations in the scope of its Russian investigation. "One of the focus points of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation is the U.S. government's response to actions taken by Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign. As such, the Committee will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party’s campaign officials or surrogates, and we will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it," Nunes said in a statement.

The Muller investigation of Russia

The United States has gone through the  2 year Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign The length of the Mueller report was 448 pages, 34 people and 3 companies were indicted, convicted or plead guilty. Mueller had 19 lawyers, assisted by about 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff. More than 2,800 subpoenas were issued, and close to 500 search warrants were executed There were   230 orders for communication records,  50 orders authorizing use of pen registers to monitor electronic communications, and 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence. The special counsel interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/mueller-investigation-numbers-days-witnesses


WHY NOW UKRAINE AND INVESTIGATION OF CROWDSTRIKE NOW

Given how the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from January 2017 to January 2019, and given how Trump was able, in March 2017, to get the House intelligence committee investigation expanded to include investigating whether his campaign was spied on, it needs to be explained why Trump did not get an investigation of Crowdstrike allegations initiated in 2017 or 2018 while the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives.

If the United States Senate is to determine whether Trump had a good motive in seeking Ukraine to do an investigation of Crowdstrike, a DOJ/FBI/Special Counsel investigation of the merits of the Crowdstrike allegations would be needed at this time. That would be very protracted.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, November 14, 2019

@BforAL04

This blog entry is composed for @BforAL04 (first name Brian), who has announced he is seeking to run for Congress as an independent candidate in the Alabama 4th Congressional district. See Brian's Twitter account at @BforAL04.

This blog entry is composed on my own initiative and without any prior notice to, or approval from, Brian.

I am an independent and am interested in helping independent candidates for Congress in Alabama.

To get on the ballot as an independent candidate for Congress in the 4th Congressional district, Brian needs to submit to the Alabama Secretary of State by the primary election day in 2020 (which is March 3, 2020) a petition from registered voters in the  district.

The number of registered voters who are needed to sign the petition is three percent of the number of qualified electors who cast ballots for the office of governor in the last general election for the 4th Congressional district. (See page 44 of the document at  https://www.sos.alabama.gov/sites/default/files/Candidate%20Filing%20Guide%2008-2-2019.pdf.)

I do not know anything about how Brian plans to get his needed petition signatures.

I do not know what family, friends, acquaintances, contacts and connections Brian has for helping him get his petition signatures.

Brian has 3,006 followers on Twitter, and these followers should be considered a resource for helping Brian to get his needed petition signatures.

The main purpose of this blog entry is to suggest to Brian that he utilize the campaign tool of organized, direct tweeting to voters in the 4th Congressional district to help him get the petition signatures for being on the 2020 ballot in November.

For an explanation of this campaign tool, see the blog entry Organized, direct tweeting campaign tool and also look at the links in the blog entry of examples of the tool.

This campaign tool needs Brian to have supporters who will spend time doing tweeting that is needed  for the tool to work.

If Brian is interested in exploring the possible use of this tool to help him get petition signatures, a good start would be for Brian to tweet the idea to his followers and see what kind of interest and response he gets from his followers.

After I post this entry on my blog, I will tweet to Brian a link to this blog entry, and he can proceed from there as he sees fit.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, November 11, 2019

Silos in AL politics

There is ignorance, misinformation and bias in the public political discourse in Alabama.

There are also pools of knowledge that could be helpful to Alabamians if the same was communicated to them.

Two of these are Alabama business chambers of commerce and the Alabama health care community (the latter comprised of doctors, nurses, hospitals, health insurance companies, governmental agencies and university academic departments). Alabama citizens should be better informed about what the business chambers of commerce think and what the Alabama health care community thinks.

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE
11/23/19 National political crisis and failure of governance

I am seeking to communicate this to Alabama business chambers of commerce, because of our national political crisis and failure of governance.

In the incapacitation of our governance, there is widespread ignorance of voters about complex matters, there is a self-serving political class that advantages itself by keeping their political bases riled up with egregiously slanted communications, and there are pools of expertise with valuable knowledge and understanding about the complex matters as to which there is widespread voter ignorance.

In current conditions, these pools of expertise are in silos, their valuable knowledge and understanding do not get imparted to the voters, and the voters are relegated to receiving their slanted communications from the segment of the political class to which they bear allegiance.

The slanted communications from the two competing segments of the political class are contradictory and contribute to political deadlock.

Business, to serve its purposes, has an array of expertise, knowledge and understanding about the constitution, the law, public officials, the environment, the economy health care, gun violence and immigration.

In the national political crisis of impeachment, business chambers of commerce have the capacity to evaluate whether Donald Trump is violating the rule of law as the Democrats are alleging and, if so, the risk of that to the proper functioning of the republic so long as Donald Trump continues as President and also afterwards if Donald Trump should continue for four more years as President.

Business chambers of commerce also have the capacity to evaluate whether self-serving, self-protecting GOP members of Congress are failing in their constitutional duties to uphold the rule of law and are misleading their GOP voters about the risk of Donald Trump to the proper functioning of the republic.

I will not prejudge how any Alabama chamber of commerce makes the foregoing evaluations.

I will, however, say, if an Alabama chamber of commerce makes an evaluation that Donald Trump is violating the rule of law and is a serious risk to the the proper functioning of the republic, such Alabama chamber of commerce should speak publicly about the matter.

For what it is worth to you, my own thinking about this subject is indicated at http://trumptweet.blogspot.com/2019/11/draft-articles-of-impeachment.html.

Thank you for your attention to this communication.
Robert Shattuck

12/4/2019
Alabama business chambers of commerce should come out of their silo and particularly communicate to Alabamians what the chambers of commerce think about:
1. Trump's three years of charges about Fake News and the making up of stories about him;.
2. Trump's alleged 13,345 false or misleading claims in 993 days as President https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/; and
3. Whether Trump has or seeks too much power as an economic czar over United States business, with the consequence of replacing rule of law by rule of Trump and contributing to the corruption of Trump using his economic czar powers to gain political allegiance to him from individual businesses, business sectors, and geographical areas of the country.

12/14/2019
The impeachment is focused on Trump shaking down the newly elected Ukraine president in order for Trump to get a personal political benefit.
This has been accompanied  by Trump categorical statements that he did nothing wrong and stark fear of the GOP to contradict Trump by saying Trump did do something wrong.
It is fair to think, if Trump is not convicted in the Senate trial, Trump will be emboldened  to abuse his Presidential power and do more shaking down of victims in many other types of situations in order for Trump to obtain other personal benefits.
The fear will become more pervasive in the United States, particularly in the economy, that will further squelch any criticisms being made of Trump regarding his abuses of his Presidential powers.
Jeff Bezos and Amazon may not be silenced from making criticism of Trump, but big swaths of the business community may be cowed by Trump and subjected to Trump shake downs

3/2/2020
The corona virus emergency has called attention to whether Trump has hollowed out the Federal government so that the government cannot fulfill important functions on which the American people depend, but about which hollowing out the American people are ignorant. ALGOP members of Congres probably cannot be looked to by Alabamians for information about this. For information about what has happened, refer to Michael Lewis' 2018 book The Fifth Risk, and George Packer's Atlantic Monthly article The President Is Winning His War on American Institutions. The Alabama business community should come out of their silo and communicate to Alabamians about this.


8/30/2020 Gun violence
After the Galleria mall shooting in 2018, I thought Alabama business chambers of commerce should be more outspoken on the subject of gun violence and gun control.
The controversy regarding Barry Moore's Facebook post about Kyle Rittenhouse has prompted me to add this section to the this blog entry.

4/21/21 email to Shelby County Chamber
From: Rob Shattuck <rdshatt@aol.com>
To: ____@shelbychamber.org
Cc: ____@shelbychamber.org
Sent: Wed, Apr 21, 2021 8:31 am
Subject: Shelby County Chamber; AL HD73 special election; guns; abortion
Dear Mr. Mancer
I am availing of the House District 73 special election and the candidacy of Kenneth Paschal to write this email to the Shelby County Chamber.
Kenneth Paschal's campaign website https://www.kennethpaschal.com/ identifies him as connected with the Chamber and says the following:
Shelby County Chambers Governmental Affairs Group member; and Exchange Club of Shelby County Board of Directors
Committed to Pro-Life, supporter of Gun Rights, protection of your liberties and freedoms, and strengthening the Republican Party.
I have been advocating, via Twitter and my blogs, that the Alabama business community, as represented by chambers of commerce, bring to bear a better sensibility on the two political issues of guns and abortion, than is standard in the Alabama Republican Party, which is extreme in opposing abortion and in opposing increased gun control.
In light of the special election and the 2022 election cycle generally, and in light of current affairs, I urge the Shelby County Chamber to give new or further consideration to the two political issues of abortion and increased gun control. This would include review of the public messaging the chamber does regarding the same and the support that it and its members give to (or withhold from) political candidates connected to these two issues, and decide whether there should be changes in such public messaging and in support or not of candidates, such as Kenneth Paschal.
I am not a member of the chamber and can only appeal to the chamber's sense of civic responsibility and sense of what is good for Alabama business.
I have to think the chamber believes that gun violence is bad for business in Alabama, and reducing gun violence would be beneficial.
On abortion, let me put it in terms of a question: If Roe v. Wade was overturned, would it be good or bad for Alabama business for the Alabama legislature to enact a total ban on abortion in light of things like possible unwillingness of businesses to locate in Alabama due to a total ban on abortion.
While I can only appeal to the chamber's sense of civic responsibility and sense of what is good for Alabama business, I can augment the force of my appeal by making it public within my limited capacity to do that via Twitter and my blogs.
In that vein, please see https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/11/silos-in-al-politics.html, where, after I send this email, I will copy and paste this email.
Thank you for your attention to this email.
Sincerely,
Rob Shattuck

10/10/22 

[added 3/22/2021]
3/22/2021 Abortion


[added 9/14/2021]
9/14/2021 Vaccine mandates

ALABAMA HEALTH CARE COMMUNITY
Healthcare 2020

In the United States, one political side continues to seek  to "repeal and replace" Obamacare, the other political side trying to stand athwart that, and Trump and the Republicans doing piecemeal dismantling of Obamacare.

This leaves the healthcare system a mess, with no sign that our broken, polarized Congress has any capacity to do its job for the American people regarding healthcare.

Further, this is in the context of a looming national healthcare crisis growing out of, among other things, obesity, diabetes and the increased number of more old people who are living longer.

The country's current financial duress in the healthcare domain is only going to grow much greater in the coming years.

How well Congress and the Federal government, and how well state legislatures and state governments, will be able to get their acts together and manage the ticking healthcare time bomb is uncertain. There is reason for a lack of confidence.

I am not in any position of authority and I have no healthcare policy role, public or private.

Nonetheless, in connection with the 2017 special Senate election in Alabama, I undertook to try to engage the candidates, academics, and representatives from the healthcare industry, etc., to have public discussion of their views about what should be done regarding health care reform. You may learn more about what I tried to do at http://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2017/06/health-care-symposium.html.

This effort I made in 2017 went nowhere.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, November 10, 2019

Alabamians for Bloomberg

[2/21/20 Addendum added below regarding  treatment of women, NDA's]

My personal number one political priority is that Donald Trump's Presidency come to an end.

Millions of other American probably also have that as their number one personal political priority.

Ostensibly, that is Michael Bloomberg's number one priority. https://www.axios.com/michael-bloomberg-2020-presidential-race-decision-8d6f720f-5b7e-467f-abca-2d64a81bfab3.html

Everyone who wants to end the Trump presidency and who wants to do something to help end it needs to decide what things they can do will help do that.

Tentatively, I think touting Bloomberg for President is worthwhile doing to help end the Trump Presidency.

What do you think?

TWEET IF YOU AGREE
Click on the below "TWEET HERE" link to send a tweet which says
I am an Alabamian tweeting for Mike and against Trump  #alpolitics #ALforMikeandAgainstTrump
https://al6thcongdist-ihaveuntiljan13.blogspot.com/2019/11/alabamians-for-bloomberg.html
Tweet here


Addendum 2/21/2020
Below is how I think Bloomberg should have answered re treatment of women and NDA's
Thank you for asking about the treatment of women by my company and myself and about NDA's that have been signed. My response on this is, first, I believe I will do right by women if I am President of the United States. For voters to decide about this, there is currently much reported information, both favorable and unfavorable, about me and my company's treatment of women, and more information will come out. Voters should take all the information into account as they see fit in deciding whether they believe I will do right by women if I am President. Some voters may decide not to vote for me because they think I will not do right by women. With the information that is available, I consider for me to dwell more on the subject in my campaign is a distraction from more important things I think voters should consider. As  a result, I intend not to say more on the subject and I do not intend to release parties from their NDA's. I respect whatever voters decide about me under the circumstances.
Posted by at 1 comment:

Wednesday, November 6, 2019

Boo tweet Trump

[See Update 11/9/19 below]

Today's below announcement by the Alabama SGA is producing a significant Twitter reaction.

I have suggested doing Trump booing into Bryant Denny via Twitter by sending individual "boo Trump" tweets to those who tweet on Saturday using #RollTide hashtag.


This suggestion calls for discussion for the benefit of Alabama anti-Trumpers who wish to take up the suggestion.

Sending individually directed tweets to other persons who tweet on Saturday using the #RollTide hashtag involves sending unsolicited tweets to persons who may only want to enjoy the LSU game, who don't want to receive any political tweet, particularly from someone whom they don't know, and who may report to Twitter the individual tweet they receive from you.

In light of the foregoing, perhaps you would prefer just to send one or more general tweets expressing your anti-Trump sentiment, which include the #RollTide hashtag, so that persons who scroll through that hashtag may see your anti-Trump tweet.

If you send a general tweet using the #RollTide hashtag, you can consider including a link to this blog entry, so that some who see your tweet may click on the link, read this blog entry, and decide they want to send their own anti-Trump general tweet using the #RollTide hashtag.

Please tweet me with any suggestions you have, or leave a comment below.

Thanks.


Update 11/9/19
Many anti-Trump tweets are being sent using the #BooTrumpRollTide hashtag.

Look at tweets on that hashtag, and consider whether you have ideas about how to amplify the Twitter messaging that is being done.

Consider whether you want to send individually directed tweets selectively to persons who are tweeting today using #RollTide hashtag (discussed above).

Consider whether you want to do tweeting that is more substantive, particularly if you do individually directed tweeting.

For example, consider the below tweet I just sent:

 Please tweet me with any suggestions you have, or leave a comment below.

Thanks.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, November 5, 2019

Palmer survey re impeachment



[[$$$WINDOW_OPEN_LINK$$$]]          [[$$$TEXT_OPEN_LINK$$$]]
News from Congressman Gary Palmer
                                               
 

Do you support impeaching President Trump?
 
 
Do you believe the impeachment inquiry into President Trump is motivated by partisanship?
 
 
Are you satisfied with how impeachment has become a priority for the House of Representatives, or do you wish that Members would prioritize other issues in their everyday work?
 

**Complete this survey and learn more about what Congressman Palmer is doing for the people of Alabama's 6th Congressional District by signing up for his newsletter by clicking "Submit" above.
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, November 3, 2019

Tweeting for Kiani

This is a continuation of my pushing of the use of organized, direct tweeting to Alabama voters as an election campaign tool and as an issue advocacy tool. See blog entry Organized, direct tweeting campaign tool.

This blog entry is not authorized or approved by Kiani Gardner, and is put forth by myself on an entirely  unsolicited basis as a suggestion for Kiani Gardner and/or her supporters to consider for use in connection with Kiani Gardner's 2020 Congressional campaign in the Alabama 1st Congressional district.

To understand how this campaign tool is supposed to work, read the Organized, direct tweeting campaign tool blog entry, and look at the examples that the blog entry gives links to.

Here are some additional ideas, suggestions and comments for the campaign tool if it was adopted for the Kiani Gardner 2020 Congressional campaign.

The tool might operate by there being created special webpages in the Kiani Gardner campaign website at https://kianigardner.com/ to which the tweets that are sent in the organized direct tweeting tool would link. I think there might be special webpages for individual issues that Kiani Gardner has put in her platform per  https://kianigardner.com/issues/.

The special webpages would, of course, invite persons who come to the webpage to join in the tweeting to other persons in the Alabama 1st Congressional district.

The wording (and visuals) of the special webpages needs to be done in a way that motivates Kiani Gardner supporters to do the tweeting that is needed and that will motivate persons who come to the special webpages to join in the tweeting.

Supporters and other persons who join in the tweeting can be requested to signal their participation publicly by sending a tweet saying and using hashtags along the lines of "I am tweeting for Kiani Gardner for Congress in #al01. #Kiani." and that has a link to one of the special webpages.

I repeat what I stated in the Organized, direct tweeting campaign tool blog entry.
I have no proprietary interest in this campaign tool, and it can be borrowed, used and developed by any candidate or advocacy group for their own uses.
If any candidate or advocacy group decides to use this campaign tool of organized, direct tweeting to voters, I would be pleased to lend help.
I hope Kiani Gardner and/or her supporters take up this campaign tool for use on her behalf in her 2020 Congressional campaign in the Alabama 1st Congressional district.


Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, October 6, 2019

AL Project Veritas - Impeachment

Impeachment threatening to tear United States apart
Political civil war has been brewing since the election of Trump.

The impeachment of Trump is threatening all out political war, with no off ramp in sight.

Trump has tweeted about an actual civil war if he is impeached and removed from office.

In this fraught situation, Alabamians are being bombarded by extreme, one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations coming from the pro-Trump and anti-Trump sides related to impeachment.

Many Alabamians don't know what to believe and have questions and doubts about whether there should be an impeachment or not.

Sources of conflicting information
Alabama's members of Congress are guilty of putting forth one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations that contribute to Alabamians not knowing what to believe.

The Alabama Republican party is guilty of the same of putting out to their constituency one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations, which are impairing the rationality of that constituency.

The TV advertising related to impeachment exacerbates the distorted and slanted characterizations about what is happening and further impairs the ability of Alabamians to know what to believe.

Most of Alabama's radio talk shows and online political news media are cheerleaders for the two political sides and only throw out to their respective bases slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations. This is done to help the standing of the politicians in their political parties and for the radio shows and online political news media to have engaged audiences who support the existence of the radio shows and online political news media.

The listeners listen only to their side's facts (or purported facts) and their side's distorted and misleading interpretations and characterizations.

In the foregoing situation, there is little or no constructive conversation between the two political sides.

If there is no constructive conversation between the two sides, the political civil war about impeachment will get worse.

In the escalation that is happening, I see little or no sign of influencers in the Alabama political landscape who are trying to tamp down the erupting war, and all seem keen on building the escalation.

For two years I have pushed strenuously to get the two sides to talk to each other, with no success. See Can the two sides talk?

I have decided to try a new tack, which is to try to produce a statement of agreed facts that representatives of the two side are willing to sign off on. I propose to try to do this with the assistance of Alabama political commentators who more seek "fair and balanced" but don't draw audience from the bases on the two sides because the bases want to be riled and don't want "fair and balanced" because they can't get riled with "fair and balanced."

If no representatives of the two sides are willing to participate, I will infer they are more keen on raging and ratcheting up the impeachment political civil war.

I will see what I can accomplish.

I will start by sending solicitations to the two political sides in Alabama and also to more "fair and balanced" persons in the middle in Alabama, which solicitations will include a link to this webpage, where I will report my progress.

[to be continued]

Alabama TV news
Alabama TV news is different from the impeachment messaging done by the members of Congress, the Alabama Republican party, and the aforesaid radio shows and online political news media, which are cheerleaders for the two political sides.

Alabama TV news has much news to report of interest to their viewers and is limited in its reporting of impeachment news.

Its Trump news reporting seems to come off as straightforwardly factual (albeit the reporting may include video clips of persons saying extreme things), and Alabama TV news seems to do little editorializing (spinning) about Trump.

One staple of Alabama TV news is interviewing Alabama's members of Congress about legislation and other matters happening in Washington that are of interest to Alabamians, and that should go heavy on impeachment now.

Alabama TV news should endeavor to provide correction to the bombardment  that Alabamians are getting of one sided, slanted and misrepresented facts and characterizations related to impeachment.

Whether Alabama TV news can provide a meaningful correction to the foregoing deplorable situation is uncertain.

The greatest potential for providing correction would seem to be TV news reporters putting hard questions to Alabama's members of Congress and do what they can to force answers, including by somehow informing viewers when there is refusal to answer questions that are clearly deserving of answers.

The impeachment story is sprawling, with many, many elements that are arguably relevant to Alabamians deciding what they believe and what they ultimately think about impeachment.

This calls for TV news directors and TV news reporters having a good grasp and understanding of the potentially relevant elements related to the impeachment and to sort through them to determine what is more at the core of whether there should be impeachment and what has less bearing on whether there should be impeachment.

This will aid in developing what should be hard questions to put to Alabama members of Congress and to try to force them to answer.

Participation in "Project Veritas- Impeachment" by Alabama TV news reporters and staff would be welcome, but it may not be realistic to get that.

Even if there is not participation in composing a "fair and balanced" statement of impeachment facts, TV news directors, reporters and staff might be able to improve their impeachment reporting and particularly their interviewing of Alabama's members of Congress.


OUTLINE 
(commenced 10/13/19)
Numerous persons have been solicited to participate in this "Project Veritas- Impeachment". None have replied.

This outlines what I think Alabamians should consider in their deciding what they think about impeachment and suggests questions the Alabama's members of Congress should be forced to answer.


A. Trump's 12,019 false or misleading statements

The Washington Post has compiled a list of 12,019 false or misleading statements that Trump has made since becoming President (list is through August 5, 2019). See https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/trump-claims-database/.

These 12.019 false or misleading statements are indicative that Trump does not believe he has an obligation to be truthful to the American people, and are indicative that Trump cannot be trusted by the American people in what Trump says.

It is also the case that millions of Trump supporters believe false things that Trump says, or they don't care whether the things are true or false. This seems to carry over to their beliefs about whether Trump should be impeached or not, and they believe Trump should not be impeached regardless of what the truth and facts are.

Question for AL members of Congress
Please respond to the above and, in particular, do you think Trump should not be impeached regardless of what the truth and facts are?

B. Trump's motives and intentions to serve self and not country

I think Trump's motives and intentions are relevant to whether he should be impeached or not.

As to any particular act, there can be a mixture of motives, with one motive being more dominant than another motive as reason for the act. Also, there can be plausible or possible motives for an act that are not the actual motive.

Only the actor has direct knowledge of his or her motive for an act. Other persons are relegated to inferring motive from a combination of the act, the surrounding circumstances, any statement the actor makes about the actor's motive, and the actor's nature and history.

Trump's 12,019 false or misleading statements evidence that Trump cannot be relied on to be truthful about his motives.

Also Trump's character and history of dedicating his life to a selfish pursuit of wealth, glamour and notoriety colors inferences about his motives while President.

There are numerous instances that may be in the articles of impeachment against Trump in which Trump's motive is relevant.

At the moment, Trump's says his motive in asking the Ukraine President to investigate the Bidens was to fight corruption generally. Others think that was not Trump's motive, and his motive was to help himself and hurt Biden in the 2020 election.

If the firing of Comey is in the articles of impeachment, there will be the question of Trump's motive.

Question for AL members of Congress:
Do you think Trump's motives are relevant to whether he should be impeached or not?

C. Trump's conflicts of interest; abuse of power; obstruction of justice

The way Trump, after he became President, dealt with his conflicts of interest created special risks for the United States as to whether Trump, as President, was serving his personal interests or serving the country's interests.

This handling of Trump's conflicts of interest called for Congress to do oversight to try to make sure Trump was not serving his personal interests over the country's interests.

During the first two years of Trump's presidency, the Republicans, who were in control of the House, failed to do oversight concerning Trump's conflicts of interest. I believe this emboldened Trump generally in a belief that as President he could do whatever he wanted and not be held accountable.

Apart from the special situation of Trump's business interests, abuse of power generally is a conflict of interest situation in which powers are used for other than public purposes and are wrongfully used for private purposes.

For example, Trump has not ruled out using his pardon power to induce witnesses not to cooperate with investigations of Trump. In articles of impeachment, there may be included an abuse of power by Trump of his offering to pardon witnesses if they hold off from cooperating.


D. Russia

In the time since Trump announced in 2015 he was running for President, and continuing to the present, many questions have surrounded Trump's connections to and relationships with Russia and Putin.

For 2-1/2 years Trump and his supporters have been calling the Mueller investigation a hoax and a witch hunt and a waste of taxpayer money.

Further, Trump and his supporters say the Mueller report exonerated Trump of any wrongdoing.

The scope of the Mueller investigation was limited to whether there was "collusion" between Russia and the Trump campaign related to Russia's interference in the 2016 election to help Trump.

In doing his investigation, Mueller was limited by not being able to interview Russians or obtain documents and other evidence from Russians. Also, Mueller was limited in not interviewing Trump himself.

A detailed timeline of Trump-Russia events running from 2013 to March 2018 is set out at https://www.politico.com/trump-russia-ties-scandal-guide/timeline-of-events

Millions of Trump supporters may have no doubts or questions about Trump's connections to and relations with Russia and Putin and are fully trusting in Trump protecting U.S. interests against Russia.

Equal millions of other Americans continue deeply suspicious about whether Trump is properly protecting U.S. interests against Russia.


E. Ukraine (added 11/18/19)

Edit 2/29/2020
See also the following blog entries:
Appeal to AL news directors, October 1, 2019
WVTM13 GOP Senate debate, February 27, 2020

Edit 7/3/2020
Further see
Dear Aunie,  May 8, 2020

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)