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

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Incorrect. I’m not apologizing for Trump. He clearly sought to arm twist Ukraine to get info on Biden.

No, he sought to arm twist Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation. They were not after information. They were after something they could use to convince you of "both sides." The announcement itself is enough.

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.

You mean if he becomes enough of a political impediment to the GOP, he will be removed. That you keep looking at this as anything other than a political question just makes you look stupid.

He’s a dream client. They guy can’t stay out of trouble and manages to get into trouble in truly unique ways.

You and I have different notions of a dream client. I prefer ones who actually listen to advice and act to get themselves out of trouble. I mean, your way is great for billing but it's also nice to be useful.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

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).

Your first sentence swallows everything you've posted on this. The fact that none of what you or the Republicans generally are arguing makes any fucking sense at all matters. Trump will not be impeached. Republicans will point at anything--including the made-up bullshit you keep repeating here--to justify their votes. Only cult members and morons* need be convinced their votes are based on anything other than retaining power.

Maybe you think you're playing devil's advocate. But you're not. You're spouting fucking nonsense.

TM

*Both groups making up 90% of the Republican Party

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, he sought to arm twist Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation. They were not after information. They were after something they could use to convince you of "both sides." The announcement itself is enough.

Didn't it come out that they didn't even want an actual investigation? They just wanted the announcement of an investigation and they wanted it to be done on Fox.

The fact that he isn't being dragged from the office as we speak is an embarrassment for this entire country.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

TM is right.

Except there’s probably still going to be an acquittal, and Schiff will be one the significant pretexts for it.

You continually assume I’m arguing that Schiff orchestrated something. I’m not. I’m arguing there’s enough to assert that he orchestrated something. I don’t care about whether he did or didn’t. That’s immaterial to the question of whether, using Schiff, among other pretexts, Trump’s actions are “defensible” from a political or PR perspective.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

TM is right.

The rest of us all understand that many people, especially Trump defenders, are not arguing in good faith. When it suits you, you pretend to care about that. For example, your complaint that CNN was showing bias when described a Trump lie as such. When you post about Schiff, you weren't saying, Republicans will lie about his role. You said, he orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, and you linked to articles that did not say that. It's one thing to recognize that other people spread falsehoods, and another to spread them yourself.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

You continually assume I’m arguing that Schiff orchestrated something. I’m not. I’m arguing there’s enough to assert that he orchestrated something.

There isn't unless you make shit up, and everyone knows it. You're either being stupid or dishonest. Pick one and own it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The rest of us all understand that many people, especially Trump defenders, are not arguing in good faith. When it suits you, you pretend to care about that. For example, your complaint that CNN was showing bias when described a Trump lie as such. When you post about Schiff, you weren't saying, Republicans will lie about his role. You said, he orchestrated the whistleblower's complaint, and you linked to articles that did not say that. It's one thing to recognize that other people spread falsehoods, and another to spread them yourself.

This is your characterization. The actual quote I used discussing whether there was orchestration is as follows:

I do, unless he orchestrated this with Schiff. In which case, he can't say he didn't expect something along the lines of this. He's poking the world's biggest bear.

This was stated in regard to whether the WB was being unfairly smeared. You'll note, this uses a caveat some people like to use from time to time, "if." Look it up. It's really useful word.

There isn't unless you make shit up, and everyone knows it. You're either being stupid or dishonest. Pick one and own it.

There's more than enough for any PR flack or defense lawyer to say, without appearing stupid or dishonest, "I think we need to look into how and when Schiff became involved. A lot of this seems to be orchestrated from behind the scenes."

Defense lawyers have to say things far worse all the time, as they often represent unquestionably guilty clients. Pointing a finger at Schiff here, where there's more than adequate plausible deniability of the allegation one is acting in bad faith, is not a heavy lift.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Adder

No, he sought to arm twist Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation. They were not after information. They were after something they could use to convince you of "both sides." The announcement itself is enough.

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Didn't it come out that they didn't even want an actual investigation? They just wanted the announcement of an investigation ...

Yes. I said that somewhere

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Your first sentence swallows everything you've posted on this. The fact that none of what you or the Republicans generally are arguing makes any fucking sense at all matters. Trump will not be impeached. Republicans will point at anything--including the made-up bullshit you keep repeating here--to justify their votes. Only cult members and morons* need be convinced their votes are based on anything other than retaining power.

Maybe you think you're playing devil's advocate. But you're not. You're spouting fucking nonsense.

TM

*Both groups making up 90% of the Republican Party

The transcript and depositions, from what I've seen, are bad. And even with the odds in Trump's favor, one never knows for certain how public sentiment might change between now and November 2020. (Read: We have a recession.)

If I'm an R operative, I think like Remy deciding to shoot Andy Stern at the end of Casino: "Why take a chance?" Pile up as many pretexts as one can, because you might need them.

It is insane to go into any proceeding without as many Plan B or concurrent defenses as one can employ. Schiff is one of those pretexts.

Your argument is effectively, "The Rs needn't sweat this, as the Senate is certain to acquit." I tend to agree the deck is heavily in Trump's favor there, and conviction a very long shot. But still... why not stack it even further, as much as you can? It's a hell of a ballsy strategy to put all of your chips on jury nullification, and those depositions, and that transcript, are really fucking "bad facts."

The Democrats would be in a better posture if they didn't have a target like Schiff out there. I suspect Pelosi is staying away from this as much as possible, and directing others with high profiles to do so, because she saw the deflection defenses coming miles away.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

No, he sought to arm twist Ukraine to get them to announce an investigation. They were not after information. They were after something they could use to convince you of "both sides." The announcement itself is enough.

Ok. Distinction without a difference. Either way, he sought a political favor by extorting Ukraine with military aid.

You mean if he becomes enough of a political impediment to the GOP, he will be removed. That you keep looking at this as anything other than a political question just makes you look stupid.

No. I'm saying in a situation like this, if you're Trump's people, you give the Senate every excuse imaginable. You serve them up every conceivable explanation they can run with (and you beg and promise every goody you can) in return for that acquittal.

You and I have different notions of a dream client. I prefer ones who actually listen to advice and act to get themselves out of trouble. I mean, your way is great for billing but it's also nice to be useful.

I'm not sure if I were actually around him I'd feel that way, but conceptually, in terms of creating bizarre and fascinating problems for himself, he is a dream client. Maybe the best way to describe him would be as "Fantasy League Dream Client." I imagine IRL, I'd be fired by him, and possible arrested for battery of him, within a week.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

This is your characterization. The actual quote I used discussing whether there was orchestration is as follows:

Oh, bullshit.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I said there's evidence Schiff "orchestrated" and "coordinated" with the WB.

There isn't any evidence of that, and you know it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Oh, bullshit.



There isn't any evidence of that, and you know it.

Anyone remember when LTers was ABBA or GwNC telling fuck stories?

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Ok. Distinction without a difference.

It's not. Your version, in which he sought information, credits the nonsense claims that there was any information to find. It also lends at least casual credence to the "Trump wanted to fight corruption" story that will be central to the defense.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Adder

It's not. Your version, in which he sought information, credits the nonsense claims that there was any information to find. It also lends at least casual credence to the "Trump wanted to fight corruption" story that will be central to the defense.

Ok. I wasn't trying to convey that. Either way, Trump was trying to get something via extortion.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If you can play to jury nullification, you’re required ethically do so.

Can you remind me which ethics rule requires this? Thanks!!!

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by pretty little flower

can you remind me which ethics rule requires this? Thanks!!!

ПРЕАМБУЛА: ОТВЕТСТВЕННОСТИЮРИСТА, [4]