Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[Tyrone Slothrop]

David French on Twitter:

At this point the whistleblower could be Hunter Biden himself and it wouldn’t change one syllable of the “transcript” nor would it change one syllable of sworn testimony establishing the president’s demand that an ally investigate a conspiracy theory and a political opponent.

I understand why the MAGAverse is obsessively tweeting about the whistleblower, however. They believe he/she is a blatant partisan, and they want to make the scandal entirely about him/her and not about the overwhelming evidence of Trump’s abuse of power.

Good defense lawyers make any ethical argument that can help their client. I get that. That’s mainly how you should look at the MAGAverse pundit/host class. They’re Trump’s defense lawyers. But they don’t admit their role, and they’re not bound by a code of ethics.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You always need to provide a pretext for the acquittal. Even the Senate can't just engage in naked jury nullification here.

They absolutely can and they will find something regardless of what the Dems do. Heck, I think it will most likely come down to just "let the voters decide."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

They absolutely can and they will find something regardless of what the Dems do. Heck, I think it will most likely come down to just "let the voters decide."

When Sebby says "you always need to provide a pretext for the acquittal," the subtext is that he is thinking as an advocate for Trump's defense.

Actually, it's really more text than subtext.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

David French on Twitter:

Ha! Substitute “Sebastian” for “MAGAverse” and you can insert this quote in response to virtually every Sebastian post. Sebastian will, of course, deny that he is a ardent Trump apologist, but French already anticipated this.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Ha! Substitute “Sebastian” for “MAGAverse” and you can insert this quote in response to virtually every Sebastian post. Sebastian will, of course, deny that he is a ardent Trump apologist, but French already anticipated this.

Say what you will about National Socialism, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I didn't ignore it Sebby, I actually asked you to be specific about what you were talking about because you just referred to a paragraph in an article. Asking you to clarify what you are talking about it is pretty much the opposite of ignoring you. What you've just quoted is not inconsistent with and says no more than The Washington Post article I quoted extensively, or any of several other articles about the same thing that have appeared in the month since this happened. The reported facts are set out in more detail in The Washington Post article and have not changed. They do not show that Schiff "orchestrated" anything. Again, The Washington Post:



Those are the known facts. Referring to them in a less specific way ("spoke to staffers") creates more ambiguity about what happened, but doesn't actually give you more to work with.

Schiff did not "orchestrate" anything. When you work so hard to insist that he did, you reveal your own biases and sympathies. The only people saying that are carrying water for the President. Why are you?

Um, what exactly are you missing about my role here as devil’s advocate?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When Sebby says "you always need to provide a pretext for the acquittal," the subtext is that he is thinking as an advocate for Trump's defense.

Actually, it's really more text than subtext.

Did you think I was hiding that? Of course I’m acting as if his defense lawyer/PR flack. How else would this discussion of the political game and legal machinations be interesting? Have everybody talk about only one side’s strategy?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

David French on Twitter:

There’s nothing unethical about trying to deflect jury attention away from the defendant’s actions. If you can play to jury nullification, you’re required ethically do so.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Schiff did not "orchestrate" anything. When you work so hard to insist that he did, you reveal your own biases and sympathies. The only people saying that are carrying water for the President. Why are you?

For God's sake, man. Why are you arguing this bullshit?

The transcript that the fucking President himself released supports the whistleblower's claim. The witnesses, including the moron Trump supporter who got an appointment in exchange for his million dollar campaign contribution has confirmed the Administration's approach to this. The White House actually used a pretext to withhold the assistance that Congress authorized.

What the fuck could Schiff possibly have orchestrated? Sebby is completely full of shit on this and I have no idea why you're humoring him.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Ha! Substitute “Sebastian” for “MAGAverse” and you can insert this quote in response to virtually every Sebastian post. Sebastian will, of course, deny that he is a ardent Trump apologist, but French already anticipated this.

Incorrect. I’m not apologizing for Trump. He clearly sought to arm twist Ukraine to get info on Biden. If that’s something warranting his removal from office, and the prosecutors succeed in the adversarial process designed to address that, he’ll be removed.

But whether what he did is defensible is another question. I see loads of ways to succeed in avoiding the penalty Democrats desire to impose.

I’m not a Trump apologist, but it is interesting as all hell to play his defense attorney/PR strategist. He’s a dream client. They guy can’t stay out of trouble and manages to get into trouble in truly unique ways.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Um, what exactly are you missing about my role here as devil’s advocate?

A devil's advocate is only useful if arguing in good faith. When you say that Schiff orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, you are not arguing in good faith.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I’m not a Trump apologist, but it is interesting as all hell to play his defense attorney/PR strategist. He’s a dream client. They guy can’t stay out of trouble and manages to get into trouble in truly unique ways.

You've repeatedly said he's going to be acquitted in the Senate, so where's the challenge in that?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

A devil's advocate is only useful if arguing in good faith. When you saying that Schiff orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, you are not arguing in good faith.

This process will not be played out in good faith. It’s a by any means necessary situation. And politically, smearing Schiff is an effective tool which can be used while still asserting you’re acting in good faith (to the extent you need to have that pretext for the public).

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

You've repeatedly said he's going to be acquitted in the Senate, so where's the challenge in that?

You still need a pretext! You have to take all precautions available here. Jesus Christ.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This process will not be played out in good faith. It’s a by any means necessary situation. And politically, smearing Schiff is an effective tool which can be used while still asserting you’re acting in good faith (to the extent you need to have that pretext for the public).

TM is right.