As blunt as Joe Biden is about this -- and he's very blunt -- he's still far too polite about Lindsey Graham in his civil suggestion about what Trump has on him.
0 Comments
Yesterday, I wrote a piece about all the many things that Republicans on the House Impeachment Committee have been repeatedly bringing up as supposed argument, and I explained why each of them had absolutely no merit. This reminded the inveterate Chris Dunn of a column that Art Buchwald had written during the Watergate investigation. (Actually, he said it was an article that was making its way around the Internet, but since he said he had a big collection of Art Buchwald books -- as do I -- I'm going to go with him being modest and give him the bonus points.)
The thing about this article is that it's a bit more serious than most of Buchwald's columns, though it's still pretty funny. However, what most stands out is not just how terrific it is... but scary incredibly how close SO many of his points are to Republican Talking Points today. You could probably edit the piece down just a small bit and you'd think it was written yesterday. This shows both Buchwald's insight and how little conservatives have changed in 46 years -- which ultimately I guess is one of the foundations of being a conservative. I've been a behind on my Capsule Reviews of a much of movies I've seen recently at the Writers Guild ('tis the season, after all), so here are four notable ones to get caught up. I enjoyed A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood. It’s well-done and filmed with charm. And man, what a career and persona Tom Hanks has had to play both Walt Disney and Mister Rogers. Just know that the story turns out not to be about Mister Rogers but the journalist, played by Matthew Rhys. Fred Rogers is more of a supporting character. It's "inspired by" an article in Esquire magazine, and I went to read it after the film. The article has zero to do with the plot of the movie which I’m guessing is entirely made up, including the story of the journalist. What’s from the article and used in the movie are the insights about Fred Rogers and details of his encounters with people that inform the film throughout with interesting, telling scenes. It's written by Micah Fitzerman-Blue and Noah Harpster, who I featured in last weekend's Third & Fairfax podcast from the WGA here. Side note: There is a scene when Fred Rogers and the journalist have breakfast in a restaurant. At one point, there's a shot of an older, gray-haired woman looking at them. If you see the movie, know that that is Joanne Rogers, the real-life wife of Fred. Bombshell is a very interesting film. It's the true story of several women at “Fox News” who helped bring down Roger Ailes (and also Bill O’Reilly). The movie is pretty straightforward, but is told in a bit of an off-beat way with characters occasionally turning to talk to the camera. It's written by Charles Randolph who wrote The Big Short and has a bit of the sensibility of that. Lots of excellent, small cameos playing Fox personalities and lawyers, which is also some of the fun of the film. It stars Charlize Theron as Megyn Kelly, Nicole Kidman as Gretchen Carlson and Margot Robbie – all very good, but especially Theron -- and John Lithgow who’s absolutely great as Roger Ailes. If enough Academy voters see it, I think he could get an Oscar supporting consideration. Last Christmas is a charming holiday movie that stars Emilia Clarke (from Game of Thrones) and Henry Golding (from Crazy Rich Asians). Both are very good, but Clarke especially is absolutely adorable, but not in a treacly-sweet way, and believable with edges. Her character is full of ability, but a bit self-centered and is sort of stuck in her life as a result, until she crosses paths with Golding. It's written by Emma Thompson (who has a small role as Clarke's Eastern European mother), and directed by Paul Feig. The story is smart and funny, though it has a plot twist that I really don't buy. However, it's done with enough flair that I think most audience will be able to get past the low-believability. (And now, it's not a Santa Claus or elves thing.) Ford vs. Ferrari is surprisingly extremely good, with three caveats. It tells the story of the Ford Motor Company's aggressive effort to develop a high-end car fast enough to beat Ferrari at the Le Mans 24-hour race in France, and move the company from being seen as just a safe, boxy, family car. Matt Damon plays racing legend and car designer Carroll Shelby, and Christain Bale is racer Ken Miles. They're both terrific, though the story is probably a bit more about Miles. (Fun Fact: you may recognize Carroll Shelby's name from his second career -- he became an award-winning chili cook, and packaged an excellent bag of make-at-home mixings. The film is written by Jaz Butterworth & John-Henry Butterworth and Jason Keller. The first caveat is that the movie is ridiculously long. It's 2-1/2 hours. Mind you, it's not boring and always keeps your interest, so the length isn't a problem. It's just that it's...well, long. It's hard to explain why this is a caveat. The best I can do is that an hour in, I looked at my watch (not because it was feeling slow, in fact it had been very full and interesting) and thought, "Oh, God, there's still another hour-and-a-half to go." So, again, it's good and not boring, just that I think it's longer than, to me, it felt it had to be. The second caveat is plot related and so I won't tell you. But it's a couple hurdles the film is going to have to deal with. And the third caveat is about what drives the plot -- as much as you're interested in the two main characters and their struggle, I think it's going to be very hard for some people to build up a level of caring for the team to succeed because what sets this all in motion is that the awful, anti-Semitic, deep reactionary Henry Ford II felt insulted by Enzo Ferrari and so decides he wants to beat him. I just couldn't care -- most-especially for 2-1/2 hours -- if he develops a faster race car and wins. So, I tried as much as possible to block Henry Ford out (played very well by Tracy Letts) and focused on the other two who are worth the effort. (Side Note: Tracy Letts is an actor from the Steppenwolf Theater Company in Chicago, and has been in a lot of film including as the father in Lady Bird, but he also writes -- extremely well, most notably winning the Pulitzer Prize for August: Osage County and the play Superior Donuts which was adapted into the TV sitcom.) I was going to write about the details of Gordon Sondand's testifying at the House Impeachment hearings. But as I sat down to type, I realized my heart wasn't in it, and some related thoughts were on my mind.
Mainly, they're all centered on how galling it his to hear Republican after Republican after Republican continue to repeat the same various points throughout their time to question that defy reason. And while it's clear why they do so -- when you have nothing substantive to add, all that's left to you is to distract -- that doesn't make it any less palatable. So, a few things for the record that I think are incontrovertible realities. Yes, I'm biased. But that doesn't mean I'm wrong -- It doesn't matter how much Trump doesn't like foreign aid. When the money and assistance is authorized by the U.S. Senate, which by the Constitution holds (with the House) the "Power of the Purse," the president is obligated to deliver that aid. Conversely, it also doesn't matter what a swell guy Trump is for finally delivering that aid -- and seriously, guys, make up your mind whether he hates foreign aid or is okay with it -- he did so only after the whistleblower broke the story that Trump was withholding the aid and after Congress announced they were going to investigate. Moreover, it doesn't matter what a swell guy Trump is for finally delivering that aid -- because being nice to someone you tried to have bludgeoned to death doesn't excuse your earlier actions. And it doesn't matter if you like or hate foreign aid, because either way it is illegal to extort or bribe or enlist a foreign government for personal gain to help you in a U.S. election. In addition, you don't get points for delivering military aid to a country when it was Congress's decision to do so, not yours. It also doesn't matter if you have convinced yourself that another candidate enlisted the assistance of a foreign government in the last election. That's because (whether they did or didn't) as we learned in the second grade, two wrongs don't make a right. And (okay, I admit it, this is one of my favorites) you don't get to "look better" for agreeing to deliver lethal weapons when your predecessor didn't -- because the conditions are TOTALLY DIFFERENT: an anti-corruption president now leads Ukraine. When Barack Obama was in office, however, the leader of Ukraine was the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who among other things had asked Russia to send troops into his country, was overthrown by an outraged populace, fled to Russia and was convicted in absentia of treason!!! Just one of many pesky reasons why President Obama was somewhat reticent to send Ukraine specifically what are considered lethal weapons, like Javelin anti-tank missiles, at the time, since they would be in Yanukovych's control. Albeit admittedly it's a notable reason not to do so. (And a reason I'd love to hear Democrats on the Impeachment Committee point out, for goodness sake.) Moreover, to be very clear, under President Obama, weapons were also given to Ukraine, not merely "blankets," just not what are lethal weapons. No, Trump did not use the words "quid pro quo." And insists he didn't have a "quid pro quo." But then, someone who bribes or extorts someone is generally not likely to use the words "bribe" and "extort" when they do so. More likely, they'll throw their arm around you, smile warmly and say, "Hey, y'know what would be nice...?" Even if Trump didn't do a "quid pro quo," it is still illegal to ask a foreign country for help in a U.S. election. Trump has never shown interest in corruption in any country, and has in fact developed close relationships with corrupt despots from Putin to Erdogan to Kim Jong-Un and more. And he never once mentioned "corruption" in either of his two phone calls with the anti-corruption president of Ukraine. So, contentions of Trump's interest in corruption (except perhaps to get or give tips) has no foundation. Actually, there not even any evidence that Trump, in fact, wanted an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens (perhaps because it would acquit them), but rather just that he only wanted the announcement of an investigation. Because that would get the headlines and provide the aura of something being wrong. But only wanting the announcement of an investigation and not an investigation itself confirms that Trump has zero interest in corruption. If Trump and Republicans really, truly, honestly believe that a private citizen, Hunter Biden, did something criminally wrong when he had the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, then they should absolutely try to get the U.S. Justice Department to open up an investigation of him. But they haven't done that. And neither has the U.S. Justice Department. So, I suspect none of them are really, truly, honestly all that concerned about it. If Trump and any Republican still thinks Ukraine was behind the hacking and computer break-ins on behalf of Hillary Clinton, despite ALL evidence from EVERY United States intelligence service -- and despite it being disinformation specifically and publicly pushed by Vladimir Putin -- then that means they believe the Democrats got Ukraine to steal the Democrats' own emails and release the most-damning of them to the public in some crazed-plot that would somehow appeal to the American voters rather than throw the election to Trump. The famous server is sitting in DNC headquarters where it's always been sitting. It's never been moved because in computer hacking, you don't need the server -- you create a "mirror image" of the data and collect a copy of that. The Whistleblower Protection Law aside (which is a lot to put aside), it doesn't matter one whit who the whistleblower is. If a person runs to a group of policemen to say that he was told that someone heard gunshots around the corner, and the officers go to investigate, discover the victim, who points out where the shooter went, they track him down, arrest him and he's convicted -- the Good Samaritan won't be called as a third-party hearsay witness, he isn't the one accusing the defendant of anything, and will have no part in the trial that convicts the shooter. Who he is doesn't matter -- unless someone wants to say thank you and give a reward. The Impeachment Hearing is about more than one phone call It's about a detailed effort to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Burisma company, which is about trying to investigate the Bidens. This is not a guess or a presumption. We know this because Trump told us on the White House Lawn! If Trump is not the person behind Rudy Giuliani's efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Burisma and the Bidens on behalf of his client,.then no other explanation makes reasonable sense why he did so. There are other explanations. It's just that they all are insane. Finally, if it happens Trump is, in fact, actually correct in what he says about the July 25 Phone Call and about the secretive plans to investigate his political opponents, then that means every person testifying under oath to the contrary must be wrong, or worse, committing perjury and lying. Everyone. Or the opposite is the case: that everyone testifying under oath is telling the truth and Trump is wrong or lying. It's a near-certainty that Republicans on the Impeachment Committee are going to try to keep making all or at least some of their totally empty points that have no basis in reality. Over and over. And some of the members will YELL them, while others will drip them in an attempt at scathing sarcasm. And they all have no meaning. And have nothing to do with the testimony and evidence about the actions of Trump and his minions. They're just blather. So, as for the details of the testimony that did get addressed under oath yesterday -- and will be addressed upcoming under oath -- the public will hear all that, too. And it, too, will build up. And being based in reality and on sworn statements, it will carry the weight of honesty and fact. Everyone won't be convinced. But then, you don't have to convince everyone. And after all, as the founder of the Republican Party itself once said -- You can fool some of the people some of the time. You can fool some of the people all of the time. But you can't fool all the people all the time. Unless, it turns out, some of the people are Republicans. What with the Impeachment Hearings going on, I figured it was time to bring back another Comedy Against Trumpism video. I was hoping to find one done by Ukraine, but alas there is none. (Perhaps it's been withheld...) The closest I could find was one for Moldova, which borders Ukraine to the south. (You'll even seen them on a map at about the 3:15 mark.) Here, Moldova makes their case (and it's a pretty funny, self-effacing one) that if it's going to be America first, at least could Moldova be second -- especially if one likes beer.
As a reminder, Peter Sagal is the host of Wait, Wait...Don't Tell Me!, the NPR quiz show from which I post segments here from time to time. He posted this below during Ambassador Gordon Sondland's devastating testimony today.
|
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Archives
May 2024
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|