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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Just to be clear: "without evidence" means there isn't any evidence, not that there is.

This would be clever, except I didn't say there was evidence Schiff "composed" the complaint. Trump said that, and there is no evidence of that. I said there's evidence Schiff "orchestrated" and "coordinated" with the WB. The WB reached out to his office in advance, so he knew the Complaint was being filed. This is evidence of both.

That undoes most of your second point. Now, let's undo the rest. From the PBS article:

The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

If I give you advance warnings of accusations, it's highly likely - if not "inescapable" as you'd prefer - that I've told you what those accusations are. Or maybe I haven't. But again, this is evidence of possible coordination, or orchestration.

Why do you keep repeating Donald Trump's baseless claims when the truth has been reported? Why are you such a sucker for his lies?

I'm saying something entirely different than Trump. Trump is making shit up. I'm saying what any good counsel or PR person would faced with these facts: That there is evidence Schiff coordinated or orchestrated. Is it evidence likely to prove such a case? Who cares? The only measure that matters here is creating enough of a whiff of a set-up to create cover for the R Senators who are going to have to hold their noses during the acquittal.

And Schiff is a significant cause of it, intentionally or now (which is also immaterial). Someone else should be in charge of this, to neutralize that problem.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This would be clever, except I didn't say there was evidence Schiff "composed" the complaint. Trump said that, and there is no evidence of that. I said there's evidence Schiff "orchestrated" and "coordinated" with the WB. The WB reached out to his office in advance, so he knew the Complaint was being filed. This is evidence of both.

That undoes most of your second point. Now, let's undo the rest. From the PBS article:

The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

If I give you advance warnings of accusations, it's highly likely - if not "inescapable" as you'd prefer - that I've told you what those accusations are. Or maybe I haven't. But again, this is evidence of possible coordination, or orchestration.



I'm saying something entirely different than Trump. Trump is making shit up. I'm saying what any good counsel or PR person would faced with these facts: That there is evidence Schiff coordinated or orchestrated. Is it evidence likely to prove such a case? Who cares? The only measure that matters here is creating enough of a whiff of a set-up to create cover for the R Senators who are going to have to hold their noses during the acquittal.

And Schiff is a significant cause of it, intentionally or now (which is also immaterial). Someone else should be in charge of this, to neutralize that problem.

If you are working in the clerk's office at the federal district court, and a man walks in and says, I'd like to file a tort claim, and you say, this is the federal court, you need to go to the country court, you haven't orchestrated anything. When you say that Schiff orchestrated with the whistleblower, you are misstating what happened, and you are either doing it consciously, because you like Republican propaganda, or you are doing it unconsciously, because you are susceptible to Republican propaganda. If you brought a claim based on purported conspiracy between the whistleblower and Schiff and tried to make it past summary judgment on what we know, you would lose. You keep using the word "evidence" but there is no evidence of the facts that go to key distinction, whether Schiff knew that a whistleblower had some kind of complaint or whether he worked with the whistleblower to shape the substance and manner of the complaint. There is no evidence that anyone on the Intelligence Committee did anything more than say, go to your IG. And you acknowledge as much when you talk about giving Republican Senators a whiff of cover. When your argument is about whether or not there is a whiff of evidence of something, you should stop arguing, because it means there isn't any evidence, and you should ask yourself when you are so committed to arguing for things that aren't true.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If you are working in the clerk's office at the federal district court, and a man walks in and says, I'd like to file a tort claim, and you say, this is the federal court, you need to go to the country court, you haven't orchestrated anything. When you say that Schiff orchestrated with the whistleblower, you are misstating what happened, and you are either doing it consciously, because you like Republican propaganda, or you are doing it unconsciously, because you are susceptible to Republican propaganda. If you brought a claim based on purported conspiracy between the whistleblower and Schiff and tried to make it past summary judgment on what we know, you would lose. You keep using the word "evidence" but there is no evidence of the facts that go to key distinction, whether Schiff knew that a whistleblower had some kind of complaint or whether he worked with the whistleblower to shape the substance and manner of the complaint. There is no evidence that anyone on the Intelligence Committee did anything more than say, go to your IG. And you acknowledge as much when you talk about giving Republican Senators a whiff of cover. When your argument is about whether or not there is a whiff of evidence of something, you should stop arguing, because it means there isn't any evidence, and you should ask yourself when you are so committed to arguing for things that aren't true.

Reread that paragraph from the PBS article.

That’s adequate evidence to create an issue of fact. That gets you past summary judgment in state and fed court.

I’m not parroting something that isn’t true. I’m saying I’ve got enough to create the issue of fact. And I do (you’ve even fallen into arguing contrary factual allegations, which is often how one loses his summary judgment argument).

You keep arguing that you have the true and actual facts and I do not. You miss the point. The point is, is there enough to assert there was coordination or orchestration. Yes, there is enough to do that. And that’s all the Rs need.

Sans Schiff, there’s probably not enough to credibly create that question of fact.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I've made it crystal clear that R Senators will vote their political needs, not the facts. Schiff will help them do that.

This is where you go all stupid. They don't need any help from Schiff or any Dem to vote their political needs. They will do it based on whatever pretext is available and there's nothing the Dems can do, or should have done differently, that would change that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Reread that paragraph from the PBS article.

I see nothing in PBS article that says anything more than what is in The Washington Post article I quoted (and many other articles written in the month since then). Please quote the paragraph here.

[Adder]

Old Shifty Schiff clearly got to Gordon Sondland now too.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Old Shifty Schiff clearly got to Gordon Sondland now too.

"Oh, that quid pro quo? Yes, I do remember it now."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why do you keep repeating Donald Trump's baseless claims when the truth has been reported? Why are you such a sucker for his lies?

Is there a way to pin this, or to just schedule an autoresponse every time Sebby posts? Can someone help a newbie here?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

For example, here's an awesome article by Olivia Nuzzi about Joe Biden that is not horserace journalism.

Thanks for sharing this article. It actually is awesome.

And this is what I'm talking about:

'He is swarmed. Women reach out to him, linking their arms in his. He bows his head and lifts their hands to his mouth for a kiss and, later, when you ask them if that makes them uncomfortable, they look at you like you have three heads. This is the best day of their lives. Are you insane? There are men, too, who embrace him, wrapping their hands around his neck. He calls every male-presenting human he encounters “man.” I watched him call a baby “man.” As in, Hey! How¬areya, man?! He is as skilled a selfie-taker as any influencer, and in the span of 30 or 40 minutes, he snaps hundreds, leaning his body against the rope that separates him from the crowd, straining it one, two, three feet forward. He really does connect with every living being this way, talking about their jobs or their health care as he listens, sometimes crying with them, whispering in their ears, taking their phone numbers and promising to call them. He does, in fact, do that. Everybody is Joe Biden’s long-lost friend. Every baby is Joe Biden’s long-lost child. A little girl in Iowa City called him her uncle Joe. On the Fourth of July in the town of Independence, he took off, running through the parade like a dingo with somebody’s newborn. As hard as it might be to believe that anything in this realm could not be bullshit, it’s simply true that this isn’t.

His own loss is staggering in its scale and cruelty: Neilia, his wife, and Naomi, his infant daughter, killed in a car crash. Beau, his oldest son, who survived that crash with his brother, Hunter, killed decades later by brain cancer. And it’s as though in that loss he’s gained access to an otherwise imperceptible wavelength on which he communicates in this way, with the eyes and the hands.

“I don’t know how to describe it, but sometimes some people would walk up with a lot of emotion in their face, and without even hearing their story, he could connect with them,” John Flynn, who served as Biden’s senior adviser in the White House, said. “He would know it was either one thing or another, and he would just know how to approach them and to get them to gently open up if they wanted to. And if they didn’t want to, he just said, ‘Hey, I’m with you, and I’m there for you. I feel your pain.’ ”'

If he can figure out how to convey this effectively over the air, he will crush Trump. I fear that he's always only playing to the people in the room. And that only works for the people in the actual room.

How has he not hired Axelrod to run this shit for him by now? Axelrod could whip him into shape and really put this right here to use:

‘Age isn’t just a weakness for Biden. There are a lot of old people in America, and many of them really like the former vice-president. They don’t see a doddering, out-of-touch, exhausted man, as the 20- and 30- and 40-somethings who cover the campaign and dominate social media do. They look at him and see, well, a statesman from the popular recent administration who has moved to the left as the party has, if not quite as much as his younger rivals. These are the people that really vote in elections, and, to them, that all seems pretty good. “I worry when I read that he is even with somebody. I just read a piece this morning that he’s even with the Warren lady,” Anne said.

“I really think he’d be wonderful in getting us back with the people that are overseas. I think he’s wonderful dealing with people. I would definitely support him. I think he knows what’s going on with all those people … He’s a wonderful man. He really is wonderful, and he cares about people.’

Finally, I hate how the author acts like he has somehow failed by not having Obama's endorsement by now. That's just stupid. Obama will wait to see how things are shaking out and weigh in when it means the most and will result in some useful momentum. He will do what's absolutely best for the Party at the exact right time. And that's how it should work.

TM

eta: I found this part very amusing:

'“They have him in the candidate-protection program,” Axelrod says. “I don’t know if you can do that. I don’t know if you can get through a whole campaign that way. Either he can hack it or he can’t hack it. If you’re worried the candidate can hurt himself talking to a reporter, that’s a bad sign.” (Biden declined to be interviewed for this story.)'

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

eta: I found this part very amusing:

'“They have him in the candidate-protection program,” Axelrod says. “I don’t know if you can do that. I don’t know if you can get through a whole campaign that way. Either he can hack it or he can’t hack it. If you’re worried the candidate can hurt himself talking to a reporter, that’s a bad sign.” (Biden declined to be interviewed for this story.)'

When she's good, she's very good. She is dating Ryan Lizza, who also can be very good. His Esquire article about Devin Nunes' family farm in Iowa is also excellent.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

When she's good, she's very good. She is dating Ryan Lizza, who also can be very good. His Esquire article about Devin Nunes' family farm in Iowa is also excellent.

Yep. Read that one ages ago.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Boy, I wish I were watching Chelsea-Ajax.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I see nothing in PBS article that says anything more than what is in The Washington Post article I quoted (and many other articles written in the month since then). Please quote the paragraph here.

I'd just put the quote in my previous post to which you were responding!

Here it is again:

PBS:

The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

ME: If I give you advance warnings of accusations, it's highly likely - if not "inescapable" as you'd prefer - that I've told you what those accusations are. Or maybe I haven't. But again, this is evidence of possible coordination, or orchestration.

The above is exactly what I wrote, and you ignored.

But if we've learned anything from last night, it's that Democrats can and should beat Trump in 2020. I know there's a theory that this impeachment thing is helping that effort. I'm skeptical of that. And we know it's certainly not the cause of last night's success. The candidates didn't run against Trump or make impeachment a big issue. They ran on issues as far as I could see. Maybe the wise strategy is to stick with that, to run on Trump fatigue, but to avoid losing an impeachment and in so doing alienating swing voters and galvanizing Trump supporters around a battle the Democrats don't need to engage?

I know the inside skinny on Bevins is he was a flawed and unpopular candidate and KY has a history of D governors. But it's just as likely this is a sign that McConnell is in trouble in 2020.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

This is where you go all stupid. They don't need any help from Schiff or any Dem to vote their political needs. They will do it based on whatever pretext is available and there's nothing the Dems can do, or should have done differently, that would change that.

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

I don't see many good pretexts here. The "duty to investigate Biden" angle is a dead lock loser. It's got to be crying entrapment, and that involves Schiff and the WB. Mostly Schiff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I'd just put the quote in my previous post to which you were responding!

Here it is again:

PBS:

The whistleblower who raised concerns about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine spoke to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee before filing a formal complaint, giving Democrats advance warning of the accusations of wrongdoing that triggered their impeachment inquiry.

ME: If I give you advance warnings of accusations, it's highly likely - if not "inescapable" as you'd prefer - that I've told you what those accusations are. Or maybe I haven't. But again, this is evidence of possible coordination, or orchestration.

The above is exactly what I wrote, and you ignored.

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:

A spokesman for the House Intelligence Committee, Patrick Boland, said, “Like other whistleblowers have done before and since under Republican- and Democratic-controlled committees, the whistleblower contacted the committee for guidance on how to report possible wrongdoing within the jurisdiction of the intelligence community.”

At no point, Boland said, “did the committee review or receive the complaint in advance.”
The committee staffer who interacted with the intelligence officer was given only “the very bare contours” of the allegations, said a committee aide, speaking on the condition of anonymity because the aide was not authorized to speak for the record. As is common when such calls are received at the committee, the staffer advised the individual to seek legal counsel and file a complaint with the inspector general — either at the officer’s home agency or with the intelligence community inspector general.

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?