US Politics, November 2019: These people are truly sick.

josh can you link that^

The two witnesses who had been subpoenaed to testify at 9am - NSC lawyer John Eisenberg and Mulvaney deputy Rob Blair - did not arrive. The other two who were subpoenaed - Eisenberg deputy Michael Ellis and OMB official/former Energy chief McCormack - also expected no-shows at 2p

— Manu Raju (@mkraju) November 4, 2019

Live updates: White House lawyer to defy House subpoena; Trump sees ‘no reason’ to summon witnesses on Ukraine call https://t.co/yVgEgtxuCn

— Ellen Nakashima (@nakashimae) November 4, 2019

weird they're doing this given the phone call was so perfect

Can I link it? Yes I can!

https://spectator.us/seven-whistleblowers-jared-kushner-bin-salman/

hrm this seems sketchy unless I guess someone at NYT/WP validates parts of this in the next day or two

sort of liberal definition of the term "whistleblower" here

"a source tells cockburn" says cockburn

weird they're doing this given the phone call was so perfect

It's the principle of the thing, they're protecting executive privilege for future presidents who might have less perfect phone calls.

did have a nice conversation over the weekend with a well-off dude who is not necessarily a Trump fan but votes for him anyway because he doesn't like "paying for other people's stuff"

basically he thinks 'impeachment' means the Dems are desperate because they know they can't beat him in 2020, that the phone call didn't say "if you do this I will do that" so it's actually fine

I tried to explain that there's a lot more to the story but then he was like "well you can't just reverse the results of the election"

fwiw this is probably the smartest Trump supporter I know

"well you can't just reverse the results of the election"

When Trump is removed, all of us who wrote-in Pence are going to be cackling with glee

Impeachment is not "reversing" or "short circuiting" an election, for fuck's sake. It's a legal, legitimate step that has fuck-all to do with an election.

well then why is it being called a witch hunt? I've totally heard that a lot, so it must be true.

“Jared did Khashoggi” is an even milder, less tinfoil conspiracy theory than “Epstein didn’t kill himself”

Impeachment is not "reversing" or "short circuiting" an election, for fuck's sake. It's a legal, legitimate step that has fuck-all to do with an election.

― TikTok to the (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Monday, November 4, 2019 11:28 AM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

yeah this argument is so deeply headache inducing. no reason I guess to think then that Trump can't just start summarily executing Democratic leadership without fear of impeachment, because how dare we nullify the results of the 2016 election?!

fwiw this is probably the smartest Trump supporter I know

― frogbs, Monday, November 4, 2019 10:25 AM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

Even a smart horse only seems to be doing arithmetic with its hooves.

yeah the whole conversation was basically a reminder that Trump's main political "skill" is attacking the media 24/7 for telling the truth, since it allows people like this who don't really follow things closely to think of the news media at large as a partisan body with their own goals and agendas. they see that Trump gets constant negative coverage and think "wow the media really does hate this guy" rather than "maybe Trump actually is bad"

at one point he was like "I'm not a conspiracy guy but I did think it was odd we got that whole caravan thing during the mid-terms, it's almost like it was set up by Democrats to make Trump look bad" to which I said "did you ever consider the opposite? Doesn't that sound much more likely?" and sure enough he hadn't, b/c in his mind the Dems are always the shady ones who control everything, while the Republicans are always well-meaning but maybe a little unpolished

body with their own goals and agendas

well this is kinda true, but the goal is "make money" and the agenda is "doing things that will help us make money"

fwiw this is probably the smartest Trump supporter I know

― frogbs, Monday, November 4, 2019 8:25 AM (eighteen minutes ago)

As someone who comes from a family of not particularly wealthy nor intelligent Fox News parrots, your buddy's opinions are not entirely original nor noteworthy.

right and I've made this argument many times, but ultimately it seems the right simultaneously believes that the media is out to silence them while simultaneously giving as much coverage as possible to Trump and his campaign

The counter to chuckleheads who complain the only reason the Democrats are pushing for impeachment is because they are afraid they can't win the election is that the GOP is pushing against impeachment because they don't think they can win an election.

I mean, all questions of critical reasoning and just like basic cognitive function aside, are the memories of these people really so goddamn short that they fail to recognize that the MSM doesn't just dogpile on presidents as a matter of course? Or even so goddamn short that they fail to recall that the MSM was pretty much all up on Trump's jock for the majority of the time he's been president? In short: fuck these stupid, stupid people.

you need to win stupid votes to win an election, unfortunately

my analogy was "do you think ESPN is biased against the Cincinnati Bengals because they always report negatively on them?"

Alternate reality is made possible by the mediation of experience and voters rarely know more about politics than what they are told by others. Both Trump and FOX understand that extremely simple talking points, endlessly hammered home, work best. Once they have captured your trust, all the rest follows along its natural course. Plausibility is not required because that trust, coupled with repetition, generates the same effect in the brain.

I used to wonder how those hypnotists managed to get a mall-full of people to lift their right arms simultaneously but I don't wonder about that anymore.

I’m pretty sure nobody expected those witnesses to show up fwiw

trust, coupled with repetition, generates the same effect

so otm imo.

gradual social pile moving is mostly how the monstrous becomes mundane. i guess another way is like, ginormous extrinsic event intervening, like a 911?

i assume steve bannons work these. xp

So GOP argument is now going to be "Biden was actually engaged in corrupt behavior in the Ukraine, and Trump just happened to be concerned about it":

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said on Monday that he didn't see an example of quid pro quo during the conversation between President Trump and Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky, but argued that even if there was, it wouldn't warrant removing the president from office.

Cornyn, when asked if there was a quid pro quo, pointed to a rough transcript of the conversation between the two leaders, saying he didn't "see the quid pro quo."

ADVERTISEMENT
"Even if there was, I don't think it would be impeachable or illegal for the president to do so. So this is just an excuse, I think, to continue this campaign that's existed since the president was sworn in to remove him from office," Cornyn said during an interview with Texas radio station KFYO.

The Washington Post reported last week that some Senate Republicans were mulling a strategy that would acknowledge a quid pro quo, but also argue that the action was not illegal and it was not impeachable.

Cornyn argued on Monday there was a "double standard" being applied to Trump's actions.

"What never fails to amaze me is the double standard that is applied to this president as opposed to other presidents. It's always been the case that presidents have been able to leverage aid to other countries in order to advance U.S. policy. And here there was a corruption problem in Ukraine," Cornyn said.

Trump, during his conversation with Zelensky, asked the Ukrainian president to work with his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to "look into" former Vice President Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.

In their ongoing impeachment investigation, Democrats have focused on that call, a related whistleblower complaint and whether Trump tied aid to the country to Ukraine opening up an investigation into the Bidens.

The House is expected to start holding public hearings as soon as this month as it continues its investigation.

Republicans view it as increasingly likely that the House will vote to impeach Trump, setting up a trial in the Senate.

Cornyn on Monday said there wasn't "any reasonable chance," based on current information, that the Senate would convict Trump, an action that requires the vote of 67 senators.

Instead, he argued that Trump should focus on policy, and let Senate Republicans handle the impeachment articles if they come over from the House.

"I would tell him, let us do our jobs, and if the House does vote on the impeachment articles, let the Senate do its job and focus on what's good for the American people. ... We'll take care of the impeachment articles if and when they come to the Senate," Cornyn said.

they've finally grasped that the weak point in the Democrats' argument is the assumption that the Bidens didn't actually do anything wrong. Because this is nebulous and hard to understand for most people and hinges on the classic "both sides do it" truism, it's their only point of defense.

I'm sure congressional aides are currently scrambling for past examples of Dem administration's asking foreign governments to investigate GOP rivals. Funny how nothing's turned up yet.

Cornyn argued on Monday there was a "double standard" being applied to Trump's actions.

i really do want to start a thread collecting all the times republicans unintentionally blurt out the truth, but we probably don't need another us politics thread

It's always been the case that presidents have been able to leverage aid to other countries in order to advance U.S. policy

this is the key point. It conflates "US policy" with investigating a Democrat. Because of course the Democrat was engaged in corrupt behavior that the Justice Department was not able to investigate on their own.

remember all those great relationships Biden had with GOP Senators?

also interesting that the GOP is willing to just let this become standard, to set this precedent that its okay to invite foreign governments to interfere in this way. Nothing to worry about, nope!

as usual, their unethical behavior puts is a political advantage: they know democrats wouldn't do the same, they know their base won't hold them accountable for it, and they know democratic voters forget about everything after a few months pass

also there are no foreign governments eager to help the Democrats undermine the GOP. At least, I can't think of any.

maybe Mexico haha

We all know that within every republican beats the heart of an unalloyed patriot, and I can think of no act more patriotic than allowing foreign entities to have unchecked influence upon our president while simultaneously painting those opposed as rank traitors.

the best part of the entire bs affair is that it's the gop on biden, he can reap the fruits of his comity.

It conflates "US policy" with investigating a Democrat.

Trump's interests are now US interests

tbf, US does love fast food.

I feel like a potentially good countermessaging strategy runs as follows: First, start with the completely demonstrable campaign finance violation, all of which is admitted public record.

1. There doesn't need to have been an explicit quid pro quo because asking for foreign help in elections is illegal to begin with. Cite the relevant USC section.

2. The alleged non-guid-pro-quo doesn't need to have been helpful, because asking for foreign help in elections is illegal to begin with. Cite the relevant USC section.

3. The foreign election help doesn't even need to have been given, because asking for foreign help in elections is illegal to begin with. Cite the relevant USC section.

Then move to the case for obstruction.

4. If everything about the call was perfect, why did the administration move to keep it from public view (e.g., moving it to a double-secret server)?

5. If everything about the call was perfect, why did the administration explicitly vow to not cooperate with investigations by providing documents in compliance with subpeonas?

6. If everything about the call was perfect, why did the administration explicitly vow to not cooperate with investigations by allowing witnesses to testify in compliance with subpeonas?

7. If you're so innocent, why are you acting like you're a guilty person with something to hide?

For the tl;dr crowd, this boils down to: You know that that thing you said you didn't do (but it would be totally cool if you had)? You did that thing. And innocent people aren't afraid of scrutiny.

this boils down to: You know that that thing you said you didn't do (but it would be totally cool if you had)? You did that thing. And innocent people aren't afraid of scrutiny.

your tl;dr is too complicated. GOP rejoinder is much more easily digestible pablum: the Democrats hate Trump; the call was perfect; they'd do it, too.

Fair point, Aimless. I am still trying to wrap my head around GOoPers saying both "there was no quid pro quo, nothing to see" AND "oh of course he was using leverage because he's a savvy dealmaker who makes deals. That makes him smart."

Seems like in a sane world just asking them to CHOOSE ONE OF THESE TWO DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED OPTIONG might be a useful messaging strategy?

But clearly that's not the world we live in. Which is why I drink.

Maybe we'll get to a point where there will be less solemnity and hand wringing and more "yeah, we *don't* like Trump, he's an asshole and a racist and a criminal and here are all the reasons why. Now I ask of my friends across the aisle, why do you *like* Trump? Say it loud, so the people in the cheap seats can hear."

the Democrats hate Trump; the call was perfect; they'd do it, too.

Worst verse of "Cell Block Tango".

NEW: The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court's ruling that the President cannot stop a grand jury subpoena seeking his tax documents, as sought by the Manhattan D.A.

This now likely sets up a Supreme Court fight.

— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) November 4, 2019

where's the tax retur-

oh. still working on it. we can trust the golden boy brett kavanaugh to make the right call!!!

Transcript of Trump's next perfect phone call: "I went to bat for you, brett. You know what to do."

I've said this before but a huge majority of Trump's legal strategy is banking on "his guys" at the Supreme Court to save his ass. Whether Roberts will allow this to happen remains to be seen, but it's sort of insane the number of huge Constitutional issues Trump is throwing at the SC.

!!! The State Dept pulled Yovanovitch from Ukraine in such a rush because they were trying to get ahead of a potential Trump tweet. pic.twitter.com/u9l2hnFJN0

— Miriam Elder (@MiriamElder) November 4, 2019

Quite a few sporting events for the president of late https://t.co/8gsnz6KA0P

— Jonathan Lemire (@JonLemire) November 4, 2019

hahaha he's desperate to attend one event where he won't get booed

He is gonna invent his own sport to prevent it

Are there no Monster Truck rallies these days?