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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

What's the clear bias? I have followed that story for a while, and grabbed the most recent link to answer, but TM shared a link from -- IIRC -- Politico which said the same thing. Is everyone who shares those facts biased?

The article is the epitome of weak sauce. This article, though shaded a bit, is more in keeping with an actual fact-finding: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01/u...n-ukraine.html

And if I might play your game, "Politico counts when it helps you, but doesn't when it doesn't." (This is an example of what occurs during the conversation you wish to have. This does not occur if we stipulate to one of the three possibilities I earlier listed, and then assess what happens next politically.)

Yes, it is. Since the investigation had been shut down for more than a year, there was nothing for Biden to allegedly kill. Moreover, Biden's role was not something that Biden himself thought it -- many Western countries wanted that prosecutor gone for reasons that were very well understood. Suggesting that Biden did something wrong here is like accusing a surgeon of assault.

This is incoherent. That the West wanted Shokin out, that other nations wanted him out, could be for political reasons. You don't know. But you're willing to play the credulous audience member if the assertion fits your narrative.

Did you go to law school? If Trump had fired Comey a year after he had ended the Russian probe, no one would have thought that he had fired Comey to obstruct the Russia probe.

If Trump had taken any action to preclude a re-opening of the Manafort investigation, you'd have reversed this argument. Again, all can be spun, and when we have these discussions, particularly with you, they shall be spun.

Because Manafort actually committed a variety of crimes over a long time. Duh.

Yes, and the investigation of those crimes had been closed. Then, later, because he found himself on the FBI's radar once more, the investigation of his old crimes was reopened. Are you suggesting the closure of the investigation against Manafort in 2011 would be exculpatory in the event he hadn't become Trump's campaign manager and put himself in the cross hairs in 2016 by committing different crimes? Could he have argued, "Yeah, you can get me for the 2016 stuff. But you closed the 2011 investigation, so the stuff at issue there is now off limits." I think Cosby used a similar defense.

It's not an "admission". It's a fact.

Ok. So Hunter worked for a dirty company for $50k a month. And dad made some calls regarding an investigation of the company, albeit after the investigation had ended, but... nothing to see here! Look, I see no evidence of crime myself, but as you and everyone else here has argued about good ole Orangehead's behavior, the absence of evidence is not acquittal.

My point here is, once more, you apply a double standard. Which is why discussions like this one, which is the one you want to have regarding Trump, get stupid really quickly. You're not interested in facts. You're interested in building a case against Trump. I don't see any good reason to engage in online investigatory and prosecutorial fantasies. I'd rather stipulate to likely scenarios and guess the horse race's finish.

Yes, and there is no reason to believe that Joe Biden had anything to do with what Hunter Biden was doing, which is why the story is bogus.

The absence of evidence is not proof of that. As you've noted as to Trump, it could have been hidden and one can never know for sure.

On these facts, when Trump pressures Ukraine to "investigate," everyone involved understands that he is trying to get Ukraine to manufacture problems for Biden.

Of course he is.

You are a smart person -- you understand that Trump does not give a single shit about corruption in Ukraine. And you also understand that when Trump pretends that is what he cares about, it is a cover for what he actually cares about.

This is called a pretext. This is how about ninety percent of what takes place in politics is executed. Our entire system is based on the concept of plausible deniability, of doing what is political but having a cover story for it. You're not some boy scout. The world runs on these types of lies. Society at large understands politicians to be lying in this fashion all day, every day. They craft policies for the interests of their benefectors 24/7 and layer them with language and justifications to sell them to the public all day long. This Is How the Sausage Is Made. Trump is just too stupid to do it in a manner that keeps him out of trouble. Thank god for that. Could you imagine if he were actually smart enough to be quiet and do this shit through back channels as previous politicians have?

So why are you pretending there is?

I'm not. I'm saying that article doesn't prove there isn't.

Even so, I'm still not seeing any kind of debacle. It doesn't sound like you think things ended in the wrong way.

They didn't end the right or wrong way. There is no right or wrong way. There was a pack of politicians behaving stupidly, and predictably, it ended in a moronic train wreck where everyone looked bad and the voting public was disgusted at both sides.

The Nats clinched a wild card spot last night, so I wouldn't call their season a debacle, but apparently you would if a bunch of people told everyone they would win the NL East.

Right, and we now know that Trump potentially engaged in covering up an alleged crime the conclusive evidence of which did not exist. Which he did in plain sight. Verdict: Trump is a dumb thug. Congrats on that win!

I still wonder how it feels to have that emptiness inside you.

This is where you veer into strange territory. What about the "substantive" conversation you desire, which would be anything but substantive (which would indeed be advocacy and political arguments dressed as fact finding) is fulfilling in a way my horse race handicapping is empty? I do not see it. I think what you are really citing when you cite my "emptiness" is my ability to shrug and refrain from joining the chorus as you offer article after article and make argument after argument about Trump's culpability here.

Do I have some obligation to endure the tediousness of it? Have the 10,000 posts authored about what Mueller would find while his investigation was ongoing not proven this sort of discussion utterly mind-numbing?

You want me to agree with you is what you want. You want me to have the outrage I think you have. I had outrage after Iraq. I have outrage when I read about unfair sentencings. I had outrage about the bailout. But here's what I've discovered: It's pointless. It goes nowhere. As that anonymous quote often incorrectly attributed to Jeb Bush notes:

“The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you got another thing coming. Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested in the truth don't have any money.” - (cited by Uri Dowbenko in Bushwhacked, Sept. 2002).

It's illusory, never really found, particularly in courthouses or on the floor of legislatures. The horse race, OTOH, is of value. It will have a winner, and a loser. That is fact which cannot be spun.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump thought that memo was going to help him?

Why would it think it would hurt? HE ADMITTED TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE ON NATIONAL TV AND NOTHING HAPPENED.

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Trump thought that memo was going to help him?

I just read it. https://ktla.com/2019/09/25/white-ho...o-probe-biden/

It's exactly what I said it'd be: Grey. Not quite enough to convict. Unclear as to motive. Includes some quotes showing culpability, but just as many exculpatory ones.

Now, let's you take the side of prosecutor and you can argue until your ears bleed why this is proof that will convict Trump. I'll play defense counsel and argue why I think you can't prove your case.

Then you go get a bunch of WaPo OpEds, and I'll get a bunch of Jorunal OpEds, and we'll throw them at each other. Then Flower will step in and make some snarky remark, TM will call me insane but argue with you on some peripheral point. Hank will make a few jokes and tell me third party candidates are the real problem.

Nothing will be accomplished.

Or we can engage in the discussion of how the Democrats might play this, how Trump might play this, and what the likely outcome might be as additional facts unfold. And it can then end, as these things always will, with this: Vote Him Out in November.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The article is the epitome of weak sauce...And if I might play your game, "Politico counts when it helps you, but doesn't when it doesn't."

Why do you do this? It couldn't be clearer that you didn't fucking read it. There something very wrong with you. Hank asked a pointed question. That article answered that question in the most even-handed way possible. You obviously didn't read it and now you're talking out of your stretched-out asshole again.

Jesus Christ.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I just read it. https://ktla.com/2019/09/25/white-ho...o-probe-biden/

It's exactly what I said it'd be: Grey. Not quite enough to convict. Unclear as to motive. Includes some quotes showing culpability, but just as many exculpatory ones.

Now, let's you take the side of prosecutor and you can argue until your ears bleed why this is proof that will convict Trump. I'll play defense counsel and argue why I think you can't prove your case.

Then you go get a bunch of WaPo OpEds, and I'll get a bunch of Jorunal OpEds, and we'll throw them at each other. Then Flower will step in and make some snarky remark, TM will call me insane but argue with you on some peripheral point. Hank will make a few jokes and tell me third party candidates are the real problem.

Nothing will be accomplished.

Or we can engage in the discussion of how the Democrats might play this, how Trump might play this, and what the likely outcome might be as additional facts unfold. And it can then end, as these things always will, with this: Vote Him Out in November.

You've been right about one thing. You are fucking insane. If you think this is grey, you should tie a concrete block around your neck and jump off the Market Street Bridge.

Zelensky brought up aid that Trump froze and Trump asked for a favor concerning some bullshit. Period. That's it. That's the story. That isn't grey. It's only grey for crazy people, like you.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

The article is the epitome of weak sauce. And if I might play your game, "Politico counts when it helps you, but doesn't when it doesn't."

You can't continue a thought from one post to the next. You said TPM was biased. I asked how, and pointed out that the facts in that article are the same facts that are in every other article on the subject, including one in Politico.

This is incoherent. That the West wanted Shokin out, that other nations wanted him out, could be for political reasons. You don't know.

No, I do know, because I have read reporting about the Ukraine for a long time, and do not approach this story through the prism of whether the narrative is good for Trump or Biden. The West wanted him out for much more fundamental reasons, and people who credulously repeat what Trump says without pointing out that it is a dishonest effort to smear Biden are doing his work for him.

Yes, and the investigation of those crimes had been closed. Then, later, because he found himself on the FBI's radar once more, the investigation of his old crimes was reopened. Are you suggesting the closure of the investigation against Manafort in 2011 would be exculpatory in the event he hadn't become Trump's campaign manager and put himself in the cross hairs in 2016 by committing different crimes? Could he have argued, "Yeah, you can get me for the 2016 stuff. But you closed the 2011 investigation, so the stuff at issue there is now off limits." I think Cosby used a similar defense.

No, I'm not. I'm saying that Biden did not try to kill an investigation that was already over.

Ok. So Hunter worked for a dirty company for $50k a month. And dad made some calls regarding an investigation of the company, albeit after the investigation had ended, but... nothing to see here!

No. I am aware of NO facts that Joe Biden "made some calls regarding an investigation of the company." NONE. Nor are you.

Why are you working so hard to pretend there's something there? Maybe you're playing devil's advocate, but the skepticism you usually have of the power of prosecutors seems to disappear when there's a Democratic presidential candidate involved.

This is called a pretext.

No shit, Sherlock. The question is why you are taking his pretext at face value.

They didn't end the right or wrong way. There is no right or wrong way.

Clearly you use the word "debacle" in a way that's different from other people who speak English.

What about the "substantive" conversation you desire, which would be anything but substantive (which would indeed be advocacy and political arguments dressed as fact finding) is fulfilling in a way my horse race handicapping is empty?

Substantive conversation can be but is not necessarily worthwhile, and and the same is true of political analysis, but horserace coverage is almost entirely worthless.

I do not see it. I think what you are really citing when you cite my "emptiness" is my ability to shrug and refrain from joining the chorus as you offer article after article and make argument after argument about Trump's culpability here.

Nope.

You want me to agree with you is what you want. You want me to have the outrage I think you have.

Nope. I'm more interesting in talking to people who don't share my beliefs. But you don't seem to believe in anything.

“The truth is useless. You have to understand this right now. You can't deposit the truth in a bank. You can't buy groceries with the truth. You can't pay rent with the truth. The truth is a useless commodity that will hang around your neck like an albatross -- all the way to the homeless shelter. And if you think that the million or so people in this country that are really interested in the truth about their government can support people who would tell them the truth, you got another thing coming. Because the million or so people in this country that are truly interested in the truth don't have any money.” - (cited by Uri Dowbenko in Bushwhacked, Sept. 2002).

That's truly sad, as is the way you use it.

It's illusory, never really found, particularly in courthouses or on the floor of legislatures. The horse race, OTOH, is of value. It will have a winner, and a loser. That is fact which cannot be spun.

Horse race journalism is not about who wins and loses. It's about the spectacle.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

You've been right about one thing. You are fucking insane. If you think this is grey, you should tie a concrete block around your neck and jump off the Market Street Bridge.

Zelensky brought up aid that Trump froze and Trump asked for a favor concerning some bullshit. Period. That's it. That's the story. That isn't grey. It's only grey for crazy people, like you.

TM

Where does Zelensky bring up the aid that Trump froze? I'm not saying that's not in there, I just can't locate it.

I did a search for the word "aid" and could not find it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where does Zelensky bring up the aid that Trump froze? I'm not saying that's not in there, I just can't locate it.

I did a search for the word "aid" and could not find it.

Just because it's not in the transcript and he doesn't tie the extortion into an airtight bow for your pleasure does not mean it did not happen.

"President Donald Trump ordered his staff to freeze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine a few days before a phone call in which he pressured the Eastern European nation’s leader to investigate the family of political rival Joe Biden, a revelation that comes as more Democrats move toward impeachment proceedings."

https://time.com/5684661/trump-aid-u...n-impeachment/

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Just because it's not in the transcript and he doesn't tie the extortion into an airtight bow for your pleasure does not mean it did not happen.

"President Donald Trump ordered his staff to freeze nearly $400 million in aid to Ukraine a few days before a phone call in which he pressured the Eastern European nation’s leader to investigate the family of political rival Joe Biden, a revelation that comes as more Democrats move toward impeachment proceedings."

https://time.com/5684661/trump-aid-u...n-impeachment/

TM

You bear the burden of proof. I'd defend that all day long for a nice check. And I think I could beat it. Criminally and before the Senate.

But I'd rather not. I'd rather talk about how this unfolds politically. This horse race is going to be nuts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where does Zelensky bring up the aid that Trump froze? I'm not saying that's not in there, I just can't locate it.

The aid includes Javelin anti-tank missiles. Zelensky says he wants more of the missiles, and Trump responds by asking him for a "favor."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

The aid includes Javelin anti-tank missiles. Zelensky says he wants more of the missiles, and Trump responds by asking him for a "favor."

Now I'm confused. Zelensky says he's ready to buy more javelins. Is this aid, or is this an arms sale?

Is Zelensky buying $391 million in javelins or are we giving him javelins of that value? The media reports I read all noted $391 or $400 million in aid withheld. Is the withholding actually Trump holding back on selling something to Ukraine?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Now I'm confused. Zelensky says he's ready to buy more javelins. Is this aid, or is this an arms sale?

Is Zelensky buying $391 million in javelins or are we giving him javelins of that value? The media reports I read all noted $391 or $400 million in aid withheld. Is the withholding actually Trump holding back on selling something to Ukraine?

We give other countries money so they can buy weapons from American suppliers. Commonly this is described as giving them the weapons, because at a higher level that is how it looks. Zelensky knows how to push Trump's buttons, and says he wants to buy rather than asking for money.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We give other countries money so they can buy weapons from American suppliers. Commonly this is described as giving them the weapons, because at a higher level that is how it looks. Zelensky knows how to push Trump's buttons, and says he wants to buy rather than asking for money.

It's kind of uncanny how Zelensky talks 45's language in that memo.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Richard Nixon pioneered the trick of releasing incomplete transcripts to thwart an impeachment inquiry, and it would be foolish to think Trump wouldn't try to innovate in that area. Who was the unlucky White House aide who had to try to tell Trump that it was a bad idea to clean up the memo? Would you bet money that they succeeded? People are already noticing the ellipses....

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

We give other countries money so they can buy weapons from American suppliers. Commonly this is described as giving them the weapons, because at a higher level that is how it looks. Zelensky knows how to push Trump's buttons, and says he wants to buy rather than asking for money.

So to prove this, Zelensky’s and Trump’s internal understandings of what was taking place would have to be proven. Putting aside circumstantial evidence, which will not work in a prosecution this significant, proving their internal motives, and a meeting of the minds, can be done how?