Weave

Interesting tweets from @waltershaub today. It is a pretty extensive list of grievances that individually and collectively map a behavior of violating the public trust. See below. This is an accumulation of like 18 tweets. Senate Republicans are setting a dangerous precedent that threatens the republic itself. I'm not naive enough to think they would hold Democratic presidents to the low standard they've applied to Trump, but all future presidents will be able to point to Trump to justify: a. Soliciting foreign attacks on our elections; b. Using federal appropriations or other resources to pressure foreign governments to help them win reelection; c. Implementing an across-the-board refusal to comply with any congressional oversight at all; d. Firing the heads of the government's top law enforcement agencies for allowing investigations of the president; e. Retaliating against whistleblowers and witnesses who testify before Congress; f. Investigating investigators who investigate the president; g. Attempting to retaliate against American companies perceived as insufficiently supportive of the president; h. Attempting to award the president's own company federal contracts; i. Using personal devices, servers or applications for official communications; j. Communicating secretly with foreign leaders, with foreign governments knowing things about White House communications that our own government doesn't know; k. Abandoning steadfast allies abruptly without prior warning to Congress to cede territory to Russian influence; l. Destroying or concealing records containing politically damaging information; m. Employing white nationalists and expressing empathy for white nationalists after an armed rally in which one of them murdered a counter protester and another shot a gun into a crowd; n. Disseminating Russian disinformation; o. Covering for the murder of a journalist working for an American news outlet by a foreign government that is a major customer of the president's private business; p. Violating human rights and international law at our border; q. Operating a supposed charity that was forced to shut down over its unlawful activities; r. Lying incessantly to the American people; s. Relentlessly attacking the free press; t. Spending 1/4 of days in office visiting his own golf courses and 1/3 of them visiting his private businesses; u. Violating the Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution; w. Misusing the security clearance process to benefit his children and target perceived enemies; x. Drawing down on government efforts to combat domestic terrorism in order to appease a segment of his base; y. Refusing to aggressively investigate and build defenses against interference in our election by Russia, after the country helped him win an election; bb. Coordinating with his attorney in connection with activities that got the attorney convicted of criminal campaign finance violations; cc. Interfering in career personnel actions, which are required by law to be conducted free of political influence; dd. Refusing to fire a repeat Hatch Act offender after receiving a recommendation of termination from the president's own Senate-confirmed appointee based on dozens of violations; ee. Calling members of Congress names and accusing them of treason for conducting oversight; ff. Attacking states and private citizens frequently and in terms that demean the presidency (see Johnson impeachment); gg. Using the presidency to tout his private businesses and effectively encouraging a party, candidates, businesses and others to patronize his business; hh. Causing the federal government to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at his businesses and costing the American taxpayers well over $100 million on boondoggle trips to visit his properties; ii. Hosting foreign leaders at his private businesses; jj. Calling on the Justice Department to investigate political rivals; kk. Using the presidency to endorse private businesses and the books of various authors as a reward for supporting the president; ll. Engaging in nepotism based on a flawed OLC opinion; mm. Possible misuse of appropriated funds by reallocating them in ways that may be illegal; nn. Repeatedly criticizing American allies, supporting authoritarian leaders around the world, and undermining NATO; and oo. etc.

Alexander Hamilton’s commentary re: impeachment in Federalist 65 seem very prescient today. “ A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” I found this in an article in Reason today. Interesting to note that the focus was on violating the public trust, not violations of criminal statutes, and notes the inherent politics involved in that distinction. The author of the article goes on to observe that Hamilton likely expected party loyalty politics in the House, but that a more statesmanly Senate wouldn’t be so caught up in party loyalty. Unfortunately, the days of the Senate being the more deliberative body and more statesmanlike are no longer here. Sorry, not sure how to link the article on my phone. Google is your friend.

Elite level talent, but he hasn’t shown the ability to sustain elite level performance. I suspect the difference is between his ears.

Haven't read the thread. Highly entertaining game. We survived some periods where we we getting absolutely shellacked. I'm guessing Vessey took some abuse on here for his missed breakaway attempt. I thought he had a pretty good game overall. And I thought Bogo's game was a nice change. Jack still stops moving his feet too often. Skinner was pretty lively out there. Olofsson made a few nice plays 5v5. He hasn't done that often enough to date. And where did all those blocked shots come from? When did JBotts hire Torts to assist RaKru?

Good call there. And a very underrated back in Bills history.

If I'm not mistaken, anyone claiming him has to put him on their NHL roster, so this is more of a statement of his desirability as an NHLer more than a statement of his one way contract.

Whoa. I’d guess to clear the infection.

Lol How many pages of wasted energy was spent on Gilmour consternation? You’d think by now we’d be undervaluing or roster pieces, not overvaluing them.

Twice.

Interesting. I live in the core of that district. I see the core here digging in.

My gut is telling me that Mitts isn’t going to live up to his draft potential. Im nowhere near suggesting we give up on him, but the longer this goes on with minima evidence of development, the less optimistic I am. I would 100% support trading him for a good 3C now.

None of the three are ready for prime time.

That MOA line is gonna get crushed methinks.

It’s not like the team has given these forum members anything else to talk about. We are bad today because of what we discuss post ‘07. SDS, might as well close shop.

In here? I don't think there is nearly that much thought put into the use of that word. It's used as commonly as calls for Hutton to be benched. That's like, your narrative, man.

MUST SEE! MUST SEE!!!

*sigh* You too? Don't stoop to this. Narrative is nothing more than an opinion you don't agree with. We all have them. I hate that this place has taken to being so dismissive of other opinions this way.

Someone would have. It was inevitable.

2012-13. The season with Ron Rolston as HC. Lets call that the beginning of the end. We’re weeks away from calendar year 2020. Call it season 8 since the obvious end of trying to win. 8 years is a hockey player generation. A full career for most players. We’ve wandered the desert for the equivalent of an entire player career. This team hasn't made a correct decision since Chris Drury left for NYR, losing on purpose included. Debate all you want if the tank wad successful. Its success is immaterial as it was a flawed decision to choose to do it, for all the reasons previously mentioned. You want proof it was the wrong decision? The proof is that it is still debated an entire generation of talent after the decision was made.

We're on our 3rd coach now that is catching heat for this team. 2 GM's and 3 coaches now.

The problem with trading Sam (or Jack, for that matter) is that one for one even up hockey trades are rare these days. Usually trading a guy means getting picks, prospects, junk back. The move this guy to get this other, equal but different guy back is a play that just doesn't happen alot anymore. Most folks paying attention are aware that I'm not keen on the crew we've assembled when we were losing on purpose, but I just don't see any benefit to trading them if a Turgeon for LaFontaine deal isn't out there. Which means our best play is signing Sam. Frankly, I like Sam's effort and attitude a whole lot better than Jack's. I think he's underappreciated by more than a few around here. But I still don't think he can drive a line. I do think he's the best complimentary player on the roster though. By alot.

Yeah, dude has potentially life changing injuries and we’re just hoping he doesn’t come back. After Tim Connolly and Pat LaFontiane I’d hope we’d be above that.

5 injured forwards.... yeesh!

Ron White appreciates the shout out.

It sounded to me like the honest wanderings of a man who was truly affected by the actions of a friend and the end of an era. Full of things to say and at a loss for words all at the same time. I sensed a genuine affection for Grapes there, and a sense of loss. Imagine being forced into retirement suddenly, without warning, and because of the words and actions of a friend. I'm more than a little impressed that he's not expressing anger towards Cherry. It would certainly be warranted. The end of the show was squarely in Cherry's lap. It sounded to me like the network gave Cherry the opportunity to walk his comments back and he chose not to do so.