LOL - and now the ****TARD in chief is afraid of public hearings.......I mean he is so concerned about controlling the propaganda/information. He knows he tried to bribe the Ukraine - he got caught and now he must pay the price, as does anyone that supports this turd. DD
I hear that. But if Taylor's now public testimony doesn't convince people, I honestly don't know what will. (And sure, throw in Sondland's updated testimony, the admissions from the White House etc.) But you either think Taylor and nearly everyone else is a liar at this point, or you accept that Trump abused the power of his office. I can understand people arguing about impeachment versus censure or censure versus "not worth it" or whatever, but I don't understand anyone saying, in good faith, that we need evidence at this point.
And btw, trump slips out that there was a second call with the ukraine president... I guess the first "perfect" call has proven to be problematic enough that he makes up a second one...
The misunderstanding, in many cases deliberate, of what impeachment is and why it is in the Legislative Branch and not the Judicial branch is rampant. To put it simply impeachment isn’t a criminal proceeding. It’s about fitness to stay in job. You might as well demand due process and right to confront witnesses if you get fired or laid off.
Letter to the editors of the NYT this week: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/08/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage To the Editor: A plea from 33 writers: Please use language that will clarify the issues at hand. Please stop using the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” regarding the impeachment inquiry. Most people don’t understand what it means, and in any case it doesn’t refer only to a crime. Asking for a favor is not a criminal act; we frequently demand things from foreign countries before giving them aid, like asking them to improve their human rights record. That is not a crime; the crime is President Trump’s demand for something that will benefit him personally. But using this neutral phrase — which means simply “this for that” — as synonymous with criminality is confusing to the public. It makes the case more complicated, more open to question and more difficult to plead. Please use words that refer only to criminal behavior here. Use “bribery” or “extortion” to describe Mr. Trump’s demand to President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine, making it very clear that this is a crime. The more we hear words that carry moral imputations, the more we understand the criminal nature of the act. Please also stop using the phrase “dig up dirt.” This slang has unsavory connotations. Instead, please use the more formal, direct and powerful phrase “create false evidence,” or “find incriminating evidence” or the simpler “tell lies about.” Words make a difference. These are parlous times, and we look to public voices for dignity, intelligence and gravitas. Please use precise and forceful language that reveals the struggle in which we now find ourselves. It’s a matter of survival. Roxana Robinson New York The writer is former president of the Authors Guild. The letter was signed by 32 other writers:
and since this is the "megathread" . . . https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/the-ukraine-scandal-spreads.php
So how does that concept work in the modern media bubble era where Trump 35-40% of the country read news media sources that constantly defend Trump regardless of context?
I actually agrees with this sentiment. Democrats are definitely bad at messaging and using "quid-pro-quo" is not some sort of phrase average Americans are going to find nefarious in itself. A better phrase would be "extortion for personal gain".
Haven't been following too closely but are we going down the same pattern with Trump and his minions? Person: Trump did X Trumper: No he didn't. Person: Yes he did, says right here, Trumper: That's fake news, total lie. Person: Nope. Here's proof. Trumper: Maybe he did, but (insert Democrat) did worse here! Person: No they didn't. Trumper: Yeah but who cares snowflake?
Warning: more evidence of the deep state So it looks like Bolton and the State went around the President to release the $141M fund, days before Trump said he did. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...e-money-before-trump-says-he-did?srnd=premium President Donald Trump says he lifted his freeze on aid to Ukraine on Sept. 11, but the State Department had quietly authorized releasing $141 million of the money several days earlier, according to five people familiar with the matter. The State Department decision, which hasn’t been reported previously, stemmed from a legal finding made earlier in the year, and conveyed in a classified memorandum to Secretary of State Michael Pompeo. State Department lawyers found the White House Office of Management and Budget, and thus the president, had no legal standing to block spending of the Ukraine aid. ... What they didn’t know, according to one of the people, was that shortly before Sept. 9, Bolton had relayed a message to the State Department that the funding could go ahead. It’s not clear whether Bolton, who resigned from the job a week later, did so with Trump’s approval. Bolton’s handling of the funding struck officials in the White House as violating protocol and caught Mulvaney by surprise, according to another person familiar with the matter. ...
That the State Dept. went around the President fits in with what we've heard from the Anonymous writer of "Warning" and also what was revealed in the Mueller report. Another sign of a Presidency in chaos and one that potentially could get worse as people are replaced by "yes men". Further if Trump wins reelection he will feel completely unfettered to do whatever his whims direct him.