War Room Lounge v82: I have watched alcohol ruin many people. Thanks for your interest Mr. Problems.

[Sketch]

For realz, if someone is threatening or implying that they are backtracing you, report it.

 

[JDragon]

It's almost like they're all cartoonishly incompetent grifters.

Senior Trump official embellished résumé, had face on fake Time cover
State Dept. official Mina Chang claimed to be a Harvard Business School "alumna" who ran a nonprofit that worked in 40 countries.

WASHINGTON — A senior Trump administration official has embellished her résumé with misleading claims about her professional background — even creating a fake Time magazine cover with her face on it — raising questions about her qualifications to hold a top position at the State Department.

An NBC News investigation found that Mina Chang, the deputy assistant secretary in the State Department's Bureau of Conflict and Stability Operations, has inflated her educational achievements and exaggerated the scope of her nonprofit's work.


Whatever her qualifications, Chang had a key connection in the Trump administration. Brian Bulatao, a top figure in the State Department and longtime friend of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, attended a fundraiser for her nonprofit in Dallas and once donated $5,500 to her charity, according to a former colleague of Chang's.

Chang, who assumed her post in April, also invented a role on a U.N. panel, claimed she had addressed both the Democratic and Republican national conventions, and implied she had testified before Congress.

She was being considered for an even bigger government job, one with a budget of more than $1 billion, until Congress started asking questions about her résumé.

The gap between Chang's actual qualifications and her claims appears to be the latest example of lax vetting by the Trump administration, which has become known for its many job vacancies and appointments made without thorough screening.

"It does seem that this administration has not been doing the same depth of vetting as previous administrations," said James Pfiffner, a George Mason University professor and expert on the executive branch who once worked in the government's Office of Personnel Management, which does vetting.

In her State Department post, Chang, 35, from Dallas, helps oversee efforts to prevent conflicts from erupting in politically unstable countries. She earns a six-figure salary in a bureau with a $6 million budget. A deputy assistant secretary usually has a top secret security clearance. It's not clear if Chang has such a clearance.

For Chang's current job, her most relevant experience would appear to be her time as CEO of a nonprofit called Linking the World. Chang has touted her small nonprofit online and in speeches as operating in dozens of countries, building schools and "impacting" thousands of people. But tax filings for her organization offer no concrete information about overseas projects and show a budget of less than $300,000 with a handful of staff.

Download the NBC News app for breaking news and politics

Ian Dailey, former chief of staff of Linking the World, defended how the organization has presented itself publicly. Daily said it is a small nongovernmental organization (NGO) that does not run large-scale programs, and instead tests new technologies — including drones — and new approaches to humanitarian relief.

"We are not implementers of programs. We pilot new technologies, testing their practicalities, and seek to identify the 'unintended consequences' that are rife in our industry," Dailey told NBC News.

In a 2017 video posted on her nonprofit's website, Chang can be heard describing her work while a Time magazine cover with her face on it scrolls past.

"Here you are on Time magazine, congratulations! Tell me about this cover and how it came to be?" asks the interviewer, who hosts a YouTube show.

"Well, we started using drone technology in disaster response and so that was when the whole talk of how is technology being used to save lives in disaster response scenarios, I suppose I brought some attention to that," Chang said.

The interviewer says Chang brought the Time cover to the interview as an example of her work.

Time magazine spokesperson Kristin Matzen said the cover is "not authentic."

After publication of this article, Linking the World removed the "Donate" button and the video with the TIME cover from its website.

A fake Time magazine cover with Mina Chang.
Chang's biography says she was part of a panel on drones in humanitarian relief efforts convened by the U.N. But there's no record backing up her claim and a source with knowledge of the matter said she was not part of the "panel," which was a single public roundtable.

Chang says in her official biography that she is as an "alumna" of Harvard Business School. According to the university, Chang attended a seven-week course in 2016, and does not hold a degree from the institution.

Harvard Business School spokesperson Mark Cautela said the school grants "alumni status" to anyone who attends certain executive education programs, even without having earned a degree there.

Her biography on the State Department website says she is a "graduate" of a program at the Army War College. But the program she attended was a four-day seminar on national security, according to the college.

Chang does not cite any undergraduate degree in her biography, but her LinkedIn account mentions the University of the Nations, an unaccredited Christian school with volunteer teachers that says it has 600 locations "on all continents."

She says she "addressed" both the Democratic and Republican national conventions in 2016, but videos and documents show she instead spoke at separate events

held in Philadelphia and Cleveland during the same time periods.


Chang, the State Department and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

Chang had no apparent ties to President Donald Trump's political campaign, but Brian Bulatao, a former West Point classmate and business partner of Secretary of State Pompeo, was invited to fundraising events for her charity, according to Ian Dailey, the former chief of staff of her nonprofit. One year Bulatao bid on an auction item that resulted in a $5,500 donation to the group, Dailey said. But he added that Bulatao had no role in the organization.

"Brian was one of approximately 400 to 500 individuals regularly invited to our fundraising events. At one of those events he bid on an auction item, which accounts for the donation in its totality," Dailey told NBC News.

Chang cultivated an active social media profile, presenting herself as a globe-trotting humanitarian, and appeared at well-heeled charity dinners in Dallas, including a "Women That Soar" dinner and a Dallas Opera event.

Her Instagram account, with 42,000 followers, includes selfies with celebrities and Washington luminaries like former President Bill Clinton, retired Gen. David Petraeus, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates, Karl Rove, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Buzz Aldrin.

She also established contacts with the U.S. military. A government contractor, AlliedBarton Security Services, sponsored a fundraising dinner in 2016 for her nonprofit in Dallas, and the keynote speaker was John Melkon, director of civil-military operations at West Point.

Chang was originally being considered for an even more senior government post in which she would have overseen the U.S. Agency for International Development's work in Asia. She would have been responsible for a budget of more than $1 billion. The administration announced an intent to nominate her in late 2018. She was appointed to the State Department post in the interim.

Chang's nomination to the USAID job, which would have required Senate confirmation, was withdrawn on Sept. 9 without public explanation, after the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations asked her for more documents and details about her nonprofit organization and her work experience.

Chang's appointment is the latest administration hire to come under scrutiny since President Donald Trump entered office. Government watchdogs, former officials and members of Congress have accused the White House of failing to thoroughly vet appointees and nominees for senior-level offices.

A 24-year-old former Trump campaign volunteer, Taylor Weyeneth, rose to a senior job in the White House drug policy office without any relevant professional experience. He was fired last year after a Washington Post report brought public attention to his meteoric rise.

In August, Trump withdrew a nominee for director of national intelligence, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, less than a week after lawmakers raised questions about his qualifications and the accuracy of his résumé.

After Ratcliffe's nomination flamed out, Trump defended his administration's screening of job candidates, saying the news media helped the White House filter nominees.

"If you take a look at it, the vetting process for the White House is very good," the president told reporters. "But you're part of the vetting process, you know? I give out a name to the press, and they vet for me. We save a lot of money that way."

In past administrations, White House staff carefully checked a potential appointee's education and work bona fides, as well as any court cases or criminal records that could be damaging, said Pfiffner of George Mason.

"The White House goes into very great detail — 'Have you ever been divorced, have you ever been arrested?'" Pfiffner said. "Most administrations are very thorough about that."

As to Chang's job history, he said, "I would expect that they would check all of the claims made in the bio, most of which would be relatively easy to check."

A potential political appointee to a State Department post is vetted by the department, including an elaborate questionnaire, before the White House ever screens the candidate. The State Department vetting is supposed to examine tax returns, any unexplained wealth, social media accounts, the status of domestic staff, any inappropriate or worrisome track record in the workplace and any potential questions about integrity, said Linda Thomas-Greenfield, former director general of the foreign service and director of personnel at the State Department.

Career officials at the State Department and across the federal government take vetting seriously "because they care about maintaining a high standard for the civil service and the foreign service," Thomas-Greenfield said. "They want to see talented people with integrity appointed to senior positions."

In the Trump administration, rapid turnover and uneven vetting instead creates opportunities for people who might not otherwise be considered, said Pfiffner. "With the way Trump has fired high-level people by tweet, it's not an encouraging thing to work for the government. But if you are not very qualified then it's a great chance to get in there."

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said the Trump administration has consistently failed to thoroughly screen candidates for senior posts.

The committee staff "has been forced to dedicate a significant amount of time and resources on vetting this administration's nominees because of the White House's negligence or incompetence," Menendez said. "These jobs aren't a joke — there are billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars and the lives of U.S. citizens on the line here."

Mina Chang's holiday album
Ten years ago, Chang was pursuing a career as a recording artist before she turned to humanitarian work. Video from that time, posted on her YouTube page, promotes her holiday album.

By 2014, she had set up Linking the World under the umbrella of a local foundation in Dallas, according to the foundation. Her Instagram account shows international food donations featuring Linking the World logos. But it's unclear precisely what contributions her organization made to relief efforts.

In a 2014 video she described her charity to a room full of Texas college students. "Linking the World provides hunger relief, medical aid," she said. "We have operated schools, we have built schools in places like Afghanistan, Myanmar, Haiti, Kenya."

In 2015, her charity received tax exempt status from the IRS, according to public records.

A review of her nonprofit's IRS returns from 2014 and 2015 shows no information about operating or building schools, and offers no details about staff devoted to managing aid projects on the ground in those countries.

In public remarks in 2015 she said her group worked in 40 countries: "We have in-house K9 search and rescue teams, we have testified in front of hearing committees on Capitol Hill, we've done things like lectured at West Point, brief chiefs of staff at the Pentagon."

NBC News was unable to find any record of her or her organization ever testifying before Congress.

Dailey, Chang’s former colleague at the nonprofit, said the group did operate in 40 countries over two decades, including when the organization was registered in South Korea.

In its 2015 tax filing, Linking the World reported that it had no staff overseas and no expenditures abroad of more than $10,000, which one expert said was puzzling given the group's descriptions of its international work.

"How are they accomplishing so much without spending at least $10,000 in those countries? That does not make sense to me," said Jane Searing, an expert on nonprofit tax forms and an accountant at the accounting firm Clark Nuber in Washington state. "They could be partnering with another organization, but then they should say that and not claim those accomplishments as their own."
Tax filings for her nonprofit show an organization with a budget of less than $300,000, and few staff, despite her statements about the vast scope of her group's work. For 2015, the organization listed spending just $44,645 on salaries but more than $60,000 on "advertising and promotion" and $50,298 on travel.

The IRS revoked the organization's tax exempt status in May this year for failing to file its annual filings for the past three years, according to the agency's website.

"To not file with the IRS for three years is really being a scofflaw," Eve Borenstein, a lawyer with Harmon Curran law firm and a prominent expert on nonprofit tax law, told NBC News. "They should know how to properly report their program accomplishments and also address other required asks."

Despite losing its charitable status, the organization continues to solicit donations on its website.

Chang received no compensation from the nonprofit, according to the group's tax filings.

She has often cited her organization's work with drones in humanitarian relief efforts but four experts in that field said they had not heard of her organization. The Humanitarian UAV Network UAViators does not mention Chang or Linking the World on a list of advisers.

But she's fuckable, so there's that.

On a side note, this is of course embarrassing, but what does it mean for foreign powers trying to place people on the inside?

 

[waiguoren]

Notice the need of many of the regular posters here to create pointless rankings of people. This has been going on for years.

Notice also that they follow after one poster in particular, even going so far as to model their writing style after him.

They claim that appreciation for hierarchy is the pillar of "right-wing" thought, and they see themselves as opposed to "right-wingers".

In practice their souls yearn for hierarchy more than any of those they attempt to tar with this "right-wing" label. Their writing reveals this immediately.

 

[waiguoren]

But she's fuckable, so there's that.

Tricked by makeup again, Mr Drag.

Work on this.

 

[waiguoren]

"she's fuckable"

 

[Deleted member 539235]

the sweden threads pretty funny, both sides typing in danish now like google translate isn't a thing and the guy who said he was in the process of finding out sano's identity and offering irl fights is complaining about escalation

 

[Sketch]

It really is one of the most idiotic arguments of them all. I don't see how anyone can make that argument with a straight face. The fact that a "americanisation" of Swedish cities, such as gang violence and ethnic enclaves, is even happening at all is not a positive thing.

This was a good post in the Sweden thread in response to Trotsky saying that Sweden still has a lower crime rate than major American and South American cities.

Why is America or South America some kind of bench mark? Both areas have very bad crime and homicide rates. If Japan or Korea’s crime rate suddenly went up because of 3rd world refugees etc, would we tell them they can’t complain because, well, it’s not as high as America’s yet?

 

[kpt018]

When it comes to culpability on Trump's part, yes. That's why I'm asking. What's the timeline on the "Russia are you listening" comment relative to this thing? Before or after?

That’s nuts. Of course Russians are going to use a third party, that’s what they always do. They never work directly with parties.

So you think it’s ok to work with Russians on nefarious stuff if you have a couple of people between you?

 

[Ruprecht]

Ghost mods deleting posts pretty much seals that one for me.

 

[Andy Capp]

That’s nuts. Of course Russians are going to use a third party, that’s what they always do. They never work directly with parties.

So you think it’s ok to work with Russians on nefarious stuff if you have a couple of people between you?

Slow down and use your brain, dude. I haven't thought anything about this was "OK" from the beginning and that's not what I said. I'm talking about whether it will sway people who voted for him who weren't swayed by anything that has come before. And I'm talking about rule of law. In the Trump-Russia thing you need to establish intent to establish a criminal conspiracy. "Russia are you listening" is damning on its own if it was before this incident with the "more dirt coming". Afterward, not so much.

 

[Andy Capp]

Lol. You did not actually read the conversation.

I NEVER said tall people have more health problems. Go back and actually read the actual conversation.

As for specifics. I gave a REAL LIFE example of what I was talking about . Hard to get more specific than that

You didn't?

I would not doubt shorter people live longer. Being extremely tall really does become a hindrance as one gets older and weaker

 

[Andy Capp]

By the way, meant to wish you good good thoughts about NSW. Is it looking any better there yet?

 

[waiguoren]

September 2019 interview with Roger Stone. Lots of good material here.


Host: Tell us about how this might end for you. Would you go to jail to protect the president?

Roger Stone: That presumes that I have some information that is negative to the president that I would refuse to volunteer. I don't know anything....

Host: You've said you're not going to bear false witness...
Roger Stone: No, and I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to make up false stories. When I say I'm not going to testify against Donald Trump, the lefties say "oh, it's a coverup and he's bidding for a pardon!" The only person I've advocated for a pardon for is a posthumous pardon for Marcus Garvey.

When I see Trevor Noah say, "Well now Roger Stone knows what it's like to be black!"----if he had read or watched anything I've said for the last 15 years, I have been a vociferous critic of Bill and Hillary Clinton's 1994 crime bill in which African Americans and poor people and people of color are disproportionately punished with harsh mandatory sentences. I'm against that. I cheer the fact that President Donald Trump has changed it. I've been a lifelong supporter of civil rights.

They say, "oh no, the southern strategy". Let's get this straight. Richard Nixon desegregated the public schools. Richard Nixon gave us affirmative action, which a lot of conservatives disagree with. I don't. Richard Nixon quadrupled the funding for black colleges. Richard Nixon increased nine-fold the funding for civil rights enforcement at the Justice Department. Richard Nixon pulled together the Republican votes to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the first major piece of civil rights legislation in our lifetime. So you can talk about rhetoric, but I worked for the president who desegregated public schools. Not Lyndon Johnson. Not John F Kennedy. Richard Nixon. And I worked for the president who brought black unemployment in this country to the lowest point in American history. No one has been more outspoken for drug law reform and sentencing reform and against the 1994 crime bill. Trevor Noah doesn't know my record.

Host: Do you think the president is going to go out of his way to protect you? You've had a close relationship for a long time.
Roger Stone: I have great affection for the president, but the idea that I'm bidding for a pardon or that I'm covering up to get a pardon, that's all nonsense. I've never discussed a pardon with him or anyone who works for him, nor have my lawyers. I'm going to have to go through this process.

I look at the prosecution table and who is sitting there but Jeannie Rhee? She's a member of the strikeforce investigating me. She was Hillary Clinton's lawyer in the illegal server case, in the missing e-mail case. She represented the Clinton Foundation against charges of racketeering. Why is a rabid Clinton partisan attack dog running the investigation into Roger Stone?

...


Host: Your case has been litigated in the public square a lot, and many people don't actually know much about it. I think it hinges on a couple of things. One of the most serious charges that they level against you is that some senior Trump official texted you "well done" after the release of the Wikileaks.

Roger Stone: I'm unfamiliar with that e-mail, but perhaps it needs some context. Does it mean that this was "well done" by Julian Assange? Let's be very clear. If they could have indicted me for conspiracy, if they could have indicted me for receiving stolen material from Wikileaks, if they had any evidence that I had coordinated the actual release of Wikileaks material between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks/Assange (who I admire), they would have indicted me for it. It doesn't exist. If Steve Bannon wants to come into court and lie about me under oath, my lawyers will destroy him.

Host: Why do you think they would have any impression that you had any coordination with the Podesta e-mails and their release?

....

 

[kpt018]

Slow down and use your brain, dude. I haven't thought anything about this was "OK" from the beginning and that's not what I said. I'm talking about whether it will sway people who voted for him who weren't swayed by anything that has come before. And I'm talking about rule of law. In the Trump-Russia thing you need to establish intent to establish a criminal conspiracy. "Russia are you listening" is damning on its own if it was before this incident with the "more dirt coming". Afterward, not so much.

Lol! Ok bud. You’re the one sea lioning me here. Everything I said is easily available online.

This is not about a criminal case, it’s about impeachment, which is political. My view is there’s easily enough evidence to impeach Trump based on the Mueller report, holding back funds from Ukraine for personal gain and using the office to profit.

My post earlier about Rick Gates’ testimony that Trump used Stone as an intermediary for wiki leaks stuff establishes a coordinated effort with Wikileaks and not just pure luck some outside entity happened to help his campaign. If you’re asking about a criminal case you have to find someone else because I’m not a lawyer.

I do think the impeachment hearings, which start this week, will influence people (voters). Hopefully it will influence people at the margins (swing voters) because his cult is immovable.

Will republican senators vote for removal? I’d bet against that, but it’s possible. Maybe Dems do a great job with the hearings and informing the public and if the media does its job maybe that makes the situation untenable for Republicans in the Senate.

We good? Am I missing anything?

 

[Trotsky]

@Anung Un Rama @VivaRevolution @BarryDillon

If one of you wants to bear the yoke of making a thread, I think the apparent fuckery in re Bolivia warrants one. While I am critical of Morales' campaign for a fourth term and was therefore sympathetic to his being displaced, it seems increasingly likely that this is US-orchestrated and, of course, the MSM is incredibly complicit.

1. The spearhead that is the OAS's - an organization dominated by right-wing regimes - findings of widespread electoral fraud have been thoroughly debunked. Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR), tweeted Sunday that OAS "never did find any evidence of fraud in the October 20th election, but the media repeated the allegation so many times that it became 'true,' in this post-truth world."

Per the Center for Economic and Policy Research: http://cepr.net/press-center/press-...ularities-or-fraud-statistical-analysis-shows.​

2. The MSM (WashPo, NYT, etc.) completely mishandled reporting on the crisis, asserting the existence of electoral fraud, falsely characterizing the opposition to Morales as widespread and bipartisan, and completely neglecting the brutal acts of violence committed by right-wing protesters/terrorists (as well as the backdrop of privatization). As seems to usually be the case, the WashPo editorial board has some of the most shameless action here.

Per Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting:

No establishment outlet framed the action as a coup; instead, President Evo Morales “resigned” (ABC News, 11/10/19), amid widespread “protests” (CBS News, 11/10/19) from an “infuriated population” (New York Times, 11/10/19) angry at the “election fraud” (Fox News, 11/10/19) of the “full-blown dictatorship” (Miami Herald, 11/9/19). When the word “coup” is used at all, it comes only as an accusation from Morales or another official from his government, which corporate media have been demonizing since his election in 2006 (FAIR.org, 5/6/09, 8/1/12, 4/11/19).

The New York Times (11/10/19) did not hide its approval at events, presenting Morales as a power-hungry despot who had finally “lost his grip on power,” claiming he was “besieged by protests” and “abandoned by allies” like the security services. His authoritarian tendencies, the news article claimed, “worried critics and many supporters for years,” and allowed one source to claim that his overthrow marked “the end of tyranny” for Bolivia. With an apparent nod to balance, it did note that Morales “admitted no wrongdoing” and claimed he was a “victim of a coup.” By that point, however, the well had been thoroughly poisoned.

CNN (11/10/19) dismissed the results of the recent election, where Bolivia gave Morales another term in office, as beset with “accusations of election fraud,” presenting them as a farce where “Morales declared himself the winner.” Time’s report (11/10/19) presented the catalyst for his “resignation” as “protests” and “fraud allegations,” rather than being forced at gunpoint by the military. Meanwhile, CBS News (11/10/19) did not even include the word “allegations,” its headline reading, “Bolivian President Evo Morales Resigns After Election Fraud and Protests.”

Delegitimizing foreign elections where the “wrong” person wins, of course, is a favorite pastime of corporate media (FAIR.org, 5/23/18). There is a great deal of uncritical acceptance of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) opinions on elections, including in coverage of Bolivia’s October vote (e.g., BBC, 11/10/19; Vox, 11/10/19; Voice of America, 11/10/19), despite the lack of evidence to back up its assertions. No mainstream outlet warned its readers that the OAS is a Cold War organization, explicitly set up to halt the spread of leftist governments. In 1962, for example, it passed an official resolution claiming that the Cuban government was “incompatible with the principles and objectives of the inter-American system.” Furthermore, the organization is bankrolled by the US government; indeed, in justifying its continued funding, US AID argued that the OAS is a crucial tool in “promot[ing] US interests in the Western hemisphere by countering the influence of anti-US countries” like Bolivia.

Corporate media ignored CEPR’s finding (11/19

In contrast, there was no coverage at all in US corporate media of the detailed new report from the independent Washington-based think tank CEPR, which claimed that the election results were “consistent” with the win totals announced. There was also scant mention of the kidnapping and torture of elected officials, the ransacking of Morales’ house, the burning of public buildings and of the indigenous Wiphala flag, all of which were widely shared on social media and would have suggested a very different interpretation of events.

Words have power. And framing an event is a powerful method of conveying legitimacy and suggesting action. “Coups,” almost by definition, cannot be supported, while “protests” generally should be. Chilean President Sebastian Piñera, a conservative US-backed billionaire, has literally declared war on over a million people demonstrating against his rule. Corporate media, however, have framed that uprising not as a protest, but rather a “riot” (e.g., NBC News, 10/20/19; Reuters, 11/9/19; Toronto Sun, 11/9/19). In fact, Reuters (11/8/19) described the events as Piñera responding to “vandals” and “looters.” Who would possibly oppose that?

3. There are pretty clear signs of a social media propaganda campaign originating in the United States, with countless newly-minted troll accounts touting anti-Morales and pro-opposition talking points.

 

[Ruprecht]

By the way, meant to wish you good good thoughts about NSW. Is it looking any better there yet?

Most of the warnings have been downgraded, but still plenty of fires. One of my cousins is over there with the CFS and it's been manic.
I'm a bit out of the loop though, because I'm stuck on the hospital's infotainment system. Not to mention all the Tramadol, 150mcg/hr of Fentanyl and lack of sleep from constant infusion and obs.

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

 

[PolishHeadlock2]

Lol! Ok bud. You’re the one sea lioning me here. Everything I said is easily available online.

This is not about a criminal case, it’s about impeachment, which is political. My view is there’s easily enough evidence to impeach Trump based on the Mueller report, holding back funds from Ukraine for personal gain and using the office to profit.

My post earlier about Rick Gates’ testimony that Trump used Stone as an intermediary for wiki leaks stuff establishes a coordinated effort with Wikileaks and not just pure luck some outside entity happened to help his campaign. If you’re asking about a criminal case you have to find someone else because I’m not a lawyer.

I do think the impeachment hearings, which start this week, will influence people (voters). Hopefully it will influence people at the margins (swing voters) because his cult is immovable.

Will republican senators vote for removal? I’d bet against that, but it’s possible. Maybe Dems do a great job with the hearings and informing the public and if the media does its job maybe that makes the situation untenable for Republicans in the Senate.

We good? Am I missing anything?

I highly doubt this happens but I read about a scenario where the Senate vote could be done via secret ballot if all the Dems and 3 GOP Senators vote for it.

I'm not sure I'd support the idea of a secret ballot for this type of thing in the first place and I'm also not buying that enough Senators would vote to convict even if in secret.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

 

[kpt018]

I highly doubt this happens but I read about a scenario where the Senate vote could be down via secret ballot if all the Dems and 3 GOP Senators vote for it.

I'm not sure I'd support the idea of a secret ballot for this type of thing in the first place and I'm also not buying that enough Senators would vote to convict even if in secret.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/11/12/path-to-removing-donald-trump-from-office-229911

Woah, crazy stuff. I didn’t know that’s even an option. I’ve read/heard in a few places that if there were no political risk (vote in private) they easily have the votes. It’s hard to tell if that’s true given republicans behavior.

 

[Trotsky]

September 2019 interview with Roger Stone. Lots of good material here.


Host: Tell us about how this might end for you. Would you go to jail to protect the president?

Roger Stone: That presumes that I have some information that is negative to the president that I would refuse to volunteer. I don't know anything....

Host: You've said you're not going to bear false witness...
Roger Stone: No, and I'm not going to lie. I'm not going to make up false stories. When I say I'm not going to testify against Donald Trump, the lefties say "oh, it's a coverup and he's bidding for a pardon!" The only person I've advocated for a pardon for is a posthumous pardon for Marcus Garvey.

When I see Trevor Noah say, "Well now Roger Stone knows what it's like to be black!"----if he had read or watched anything I've said for the last 15 years, I have been a vociferous critic of Bill and Hillary Clinton's 1994 crime bill in which African Americans and poor people and people of color are disproportionately punished with harsh mandatory sentences. I'm against that. I cheer the fact that President Donald Trump has changed it. I've been a lifelong supporter of civil rights.

They say, "oh no, the southern strategy". Let's get this straight. Richard Nixon desegregated the public schools. Richard Nixon gave us affirmative action, which a lot of conservatives disagree with. I don't. Richard Nixon quadrupled the funding for black colleges. Richard Nixon increased nine-fold the funding for civil rights enforcement at the Justice Department. Richard Nixon pulled together the Republican votes to pass the 1957 Civil Rights Act, the first major piece of civil rights legislation in our lifetime. So you can talk about rhetoric, but I worked for the president who desegregated public schools. Not Lyndon Johnson. Not John F Kennedy. Richard Nixon. And I worked for the president who brought black unemployment in this country to the lowest point in American history. No one has been more outspoken for drug law reform and sentencing reform and against the 1994 crime bill. Trevor Noah doesn't know my record.

Host: Do you think the president is going to go out of his way to protect you? You've had a close relationship for a long time.
Roger Stone: I have great affection for the president, but the idea that I'm bidding for a pardon or that I'm covering up to get a pardon, that's all nonsense. I've never discussed a pardon with him or anyone who works for him, nor have my lawyers. I'm going to have to go through this process.

I look at the prosecution table and who is sitting there but Jeannie Rhee? She's a member of the strikeforce investigating me. She was Hillary Clinton's lawyer in the illegal server case, in the missing e-mail case. She represented the Clinton Foundation against charges of racketeering. Why is a rabid Clinton partisan attack dog running the investigation into Roger Stone?

...


Host: Your case has been litigated in the public square a lot, and many people don't actually know much about it. I think it hinges on a couple of things. One of the most serious charges that they level against you is that some senior Trump official texted you "well done" after the release of the Wikileaks.

Roger Stone: I'm unfamiliar with that e-mail, but perhaps it needs some context. Does it mean that this was "well done" by Julian Assange? Let's be very clear. If they could have indicted me for conspiracy, if they could have indicted me for receiving stolen material from Wikileaks, if they had any evidence that I had coordinated the actual release of Wikileaks material between the Trump campaign and Wikileaks/Assange (who I admire), they would have indicted me for it. It doesn't exist. If Steve Bannon wants to come into court and lie about me under oath, my lawyers will destroy him.

Host: Why do you think they would have any impression that you had any coordination with the Podesta e-mails and their release?

....

I know you have a fairly high tolerance for sleaze. But, be honest, were you able to make it through that without wincing?