Kansas Crimson

Feral wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:03 am

Every time you peel a layer of the transcript, something rotten is revealed. And this is what they wanted you to see, and how (have a look at the ellipses...) they wanted you to see it.

Geezer should be posting this:

Wait, Giuliani is a private citizen and personal lawyer, right?

Why is he conducting state business with foreign governments?

ousdahl wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:18 am Wait, Giuliani is a private citizen and personal lawyer, right?

Why is he conducting state business with foreign governments?

Why is the DOJ being conscripted into investigating the President's political opponents?

Drain the swamp.

Reading that transcript, it sounds very much like it was dictated by Trump himself.

Would a leader of another country say these types of things?:
"(3/MF) President Zelenskyy: Yes you are·absolutely right. Not .only 100%, but actually 1000%"

" the European Union should be our biggest· partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than.the European Union and- I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a· lot for Ukraine."

"President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell ·you about the prosecutor� First of all I understand arid I'm kn6wledgeable .abotit the situation. "...followed up with "make· sur.e that we administer justice i':r1 our country with regc:ird: to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovicli. It was great that you were the first one. who told"

"We -are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil"

" or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine. "

" technically the United States is a much bigger partner than.the European Union and- I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a· lot for Ukraine. "

" we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from ·_ the United· States for defense purposes "


I mean, holy shit, this reeks.

...and this is what he wanted you to see.

If the Democrats are smart (ugh), what they'll likely do is make their impeachment case on Trump's public comments and this account alone. Unless the complaint includes or points to matters of public record or irrefutable fact, it's likely best to not even introduce the complaint, because it will necessarily include supposition, inference and conjecture, at least to a degree.

I think you've got him cold on public statements and this account.

This "transcript":

That's not the same as it being ambiguous.

No, it's not.

I think it's pretty unambiguous. But I'd also bet you every dollar Hunter Biden earns this year that not a single person in the country thinks differently about Trump or about impeachment than they did Monday morning.

Even Mitch McConnell?


Either way, you owe dolomite some money

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:32 am No, it's not.

I think it's pretty unambiguous. But I'd also bet you every dollar Hunter Biden earns this year that not a single person in the country thinks differently about Trump or about impeachment than they did Monday morning.

I don't agree with this - so long as Democrats don't fall into the "collusion" trap (of trying to "prove" quid pro quo), I think Trump's public statements and this account are much, much clearer and digestible things than all the Russia stuff. I do think today is a game changer.

I think every member of Congress realizes that the Senate won't convict him. What the House decides to charge him with will be interesting.

Feral wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 10:51 am

Trying too hard to spell "Party over Country"

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:30 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 11:32 am No, it's not.

I think it's pretty unambiguous. But I'd also bet you every dollar Hunter Biden earns this year that not a single person in the country thinks differently about Trump or about impeachment than they did Monday morning.

I don't agree with this - so long as Democrats don't fall into the "collusion" trap (of trying to "prove" quid pro quo), I think Trump's public statements and this account are much, much clearer and digestible things than all the Russia stuff. I do think today is a game changer.

And why, exactly, do you believe that?

Because you WANT to believe that, because it is precisely what you believed yesterday, and the day before, and the day before that.

IF the collusion issue had NOT been a part of the political discourse for the last nearly three years; IF this conversation was had and the transcript released in a vacuum; IF everybody, everywhere didn't already know that the collusion investigation was motivated, in part (note that qualifier), by sour grapes; THEN you might have a point.

But none of these things is true. 30% of the country believes that he is and always has been unfit for office and should be removed immediately. 30% of the country believes that any attempt to hold him accountable for anything is tantamount to undermining and overturning a free and fair election. Both sides are fighting over the remaining 40%, who are, more than anything, sick and tired of the whole thing. These people are persuadable AS VOTERS -- meaning that either side could, in theory, win in a landslide next year -- but they are probably not persuadable as advocates for harshest of remedies permitted under the Constitution, particularly when the waters have already been muddied by the Bidens. This will play to them as business as usual among the ruling class and even more reason to #BITFD.

I don't think you'll see the needle move one way or another on impeachment based on this -- unless, of course, the whistleblower report contains something more damning.

Does that mean the D's shouldn't pursue? Of course not. This is a POLITICAL process and they have to decide for themselves if the political repercussions favor them or their opponents. Personally, i think it will be hard to make the case that he should be voted out of office next year if you don't put your money where your mouth is beforehand. Impeach him. Acquit him. And let the electoral chips fall where they may.

At some point - and I don't know if it's today or not - logic says that Republican senators will sense which way the wind is blowing, and will act out of a keen sense of self-preservation.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 25, 2019 12:59 pm At some point - and I don't know if it's today or not - logic says that Republican senators will sense which way the wind is blowing, and will act out of a keen sense of self-preservation.

Indeed. But this is based on your assumption about which way the wind is blowing.

Goldwater, Rhodes, and Scott were smart enough to get a head of it with Nixon. Moynihan blasted Clinton publicly and repeatedly, only to change his mind and vote to acquit. The first time, the wind blew steadily. The second time, it shifted directions (and cost Newt his speakership).

We won't know how the wind is blowing unless/until we see how the proceedings play with the public. And based on what we know right now, I don't think there will even be a breeze.

The interesting question to me is whether Pelosi and Schiff already know what is in the whistleblower report. If it's second-hand, as some reports have said, then there's no there there. But Pelosi is where she is and has been there as long as she has because she's goddamn good at this. And it would be weird and reckless (as the titular leader of the Party) for her to get in front of it if she didn't already know that there is something damning in the report.