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

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Right. And I'll say it again: He's right.

So as the Ds are saying to the Rs right now, let's focus on the substance, not the speaker.

OK, I'm happy to stop talking about the whistleblower entirely.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The state *is* doing something to this guy. Those are government officials in the White House who are leaking his name to your Sperry guy, and they are doing it sitting in government officers on government furniture and on the government's dime.

Sperry is not my guy. He is RCI's guy. Leaking is what DC does. The complaint you make here could be made against all of the anti-Trump leaks we've seen over the past few years.

You are right that Sperry is not on the government payroll.

That wasn't my point. My point was that Trump and the GOP are not the state. This is political. Trump is being attacked by his political opponents, and he is fighting back. What's happening is political elected officials and political parties are fighting, as they do.

It's just not clear to me why that should matter, if you have any sympathy for the guy who is the target of those efforts. Which you don't.

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.

And "once Schiff decided to use this complaint to seek impeachment"? As if that were Schiff's decision to make.

Let's not be intentionally obtuse here.

For one, he's not the chair of the Judiciary Committee. But you have your narrative, and facts don't matter to it, as you've explained. It's the White House's world -- you just live in it.

Are you sincerely suggesting Schiff didn't push this toward impeachment. But I will credit your instinct in trying to say it was all another committee's doing. That's the kind of advice I was offering when I suggested all of this should be run in pieces, by various D politicians, to blunt Trump's ability to focus on any one "villain," like Schiff.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Where did I attack him? I said, strategically, now that he's outed (he is... Rand Paul all but said his name at a rally in KY yesterday, and numerous Rs have been using his last name in various public forums), defend him. Otherwise, you look like you're hiding something. He becomes the defendant who's not in the room, the empty chair for Republicans to bash.

The better way to have done this would be:

1. Not have Schiff's hands all over the WB in advance;
2. Not have Schiff anywhere near this thing;
3. Have some milquetoast Congressman with no history for Rs to attack run point instead;
4. Get a WB without direct ties to Brennan and Biden (it's all hearsay anyway, so why not get a WB that can't be painted as biased?);
5. Do the depositions in public, so you can get the Perry Mason moments that can be packaged into short video clips and circulated broadly (See: Kavanaugh).

Your take on this is ridiculous.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Sperry is not my guy. He is RCI's guy. Leaking is what DC does. The complaint you make here could be made against all of the anti-Trump leaks we've seen over the past few years.

In my book, Sperry is your guy, because I had never heard of RCI or Sperry until you pointed out here that Sperry has outed someone as the whistleblower.

Leaking may be what DC does, although I will point out that the Republicans keep complaining about the "leaks" of witness testimony to the Intelligence Committee, when in fact the witnesses were releasing their opening statements to the press. If you think my "complaint" could be made against all of the anti-Trump leaks, then you are completely missing the point of what I was saying, which was about the way that you, Sebby, do or don't have sympathy for people who get targeted by prosecution and/or leaks. For some reasons, you have a great deal of sympathy for the targets of prosecution, but that sympathy evaporates entirely if the government is smearing someone but not prosecuting them. When the target is of the leak is a senior government official, as with the "anti-Trump" leaks,* something different is going on.

* It's the White House's world, and you just live in it.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Why do you think Biden is a better bet to take the Senate? (And what are you blaming me for? I will vote for either. If I don't and they lose California by a single vote, take me out to the shed.)

I can't explain it any more clearly. Biden makes white people who vote (and the important ones we need to peel off from Trump--blue collar and old ones who are scared of change) very comfortable. The more of those people vote for him in places with vulnerable Republican senators, the better the chances of flipping the Senate because people will just pull the lever for Dems if they're voting Dem at the top of the ticket.

I'm not going to argue that Biden may no longer be fully there enough to energize progressives. But I think this country has proven that overwhelming swaths of people vote based on a feeling. And Biden feels good and Trump feels bad to those people.

As for you last question, I need to take it out on somebody and you're as good a candidate as anyone else.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I do, unless he orchestrated this with Schiff.

I thought you said that facts don't matter to you? In your world, whether or not he orchestrated anything with Schiff is completely beside the point. If a conservative can somehow introduce that idea into "the narrative," say by publishing it under the guide of being a journalist and getting other people to repeat it, then it becomes part of the narrative. In this case, for example, there is absolutely no evidence that Schiff "orchestrated" anything with the whistleblower, but you have accepted that GOP talking point as part of your reality, so now it's as good as factual.

Are you sincerely suggesting Schiff didn't push this toward impeachment.

No, I'm suggesting that Schiff is one of a great many Democrats who have thought there needs to be oversight of this Administration and who have increasingly supporting impeachment as it has become clear that the President's corruptly used the government to smear a political rival and advance his own re-election, and that the way you position Schiff as the key figure in this drama has little to do with reality and much to do with the conservative talking points you keep regurgitating. You tell a story in which Schiff is the key actor, and then you complain that Schiff made himself the key actor.

I can tell a story about impeachment in which Schiff plays a minor role. Recall that the IG told him about the whistleblower's complaint, but not about the substance. Do you think that any other Democratic chair of the intelligence committee would have said, no worries, we don't need to know what that's about? Trump is getting impeached because he ran a foreign policy to advance his own interests, not the country's, and because lots of people knew about it. If you think the story is about Adam Schiff, it's because you don't want to talk about Trump.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I can't explain it any more clearly. Biden makes white people who vote (and the important ones we need to peel off from Trump--blue collar and old ones who are scared of change) very comfortable. The more of those people vote for him in places with vulnerable Republican senators, the better the chances of flipping the Senate because people will just pull the lever for Dems if they're voting Dem at the top of the ticket.

I'm not going to argue that Biden may no longer be fully there enough to energize progressives. But I think this country has proven that overwhelming swaths of people vote based on a feeling. And Biden feels good and Trump feels bad to those people.

As for you last question, I need to take it out on somebody and you're as good a candidate as anyone else.

TM

The only person I've given money to is Steve Bullock, who also makes white people comfortable. Not sure he'll still be in the race when I get to vote, though.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I can't explain it any more clearly. Biden makes white people who vote (and the important ones we need to peel off from Trump--blue collar and old ones who are scared of change) very comfortable. The more of those people vote for him in places with vulnerable Republican senators, the better the chances of flipping the Senate because people will just pull the lever for Dems if they're voting Dem at the top of the ticket.

I'm not going to argue that Biden may no longer be fully there enough to energize progressives. But I think this country has proven that overwhelming swaths of people vote based on a feeling. And Biden feels good and Trump feels bad to those people.

As for you last question, I need to take it out on somebody and you're as good a candidate as anyone else.

TM

The thing is, we all know this is Biden's best argument. And I think people understand the argument, and it provides a good, strong skeleton for the campaign as a whole.

What I can't figure out is why he's not getting a campaign in place that puts meat on those bones.

Maybe the whole campaign comes to life in December and January, to time the peak for NH and Iowa, and he's just conserving resources, focus and energy right now. But if Joe Biden doesn't win this, the person he will need to blame is Joe Biden, not anyone else.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I can't explain it any more clearly. Biden makes white people who vote (and the important ones we need to peel off from Trump--blue collar and old ones who are scared of change) very comfortable. The more of those people vote for him in places with vulnerable Republican senators, the better the chances of flipping the Senate because people will just pull the lever for Dems if they're voting Dem at the top of the ticket.

I'm not going to argue that Biden may no longer be fully there enough to energize progressives. But I think this country has proven that overwhelming swaths of people vote based on a feeling. And Biden feels good and Trump feels bad to those people.

As for you last question, I need to take it out on somebody and you're as good a candidate as anyone else.

TM

One other point, because unlike Sebby's blathering this whole issue is important - I do think Liz Warren has been making some of Biden's points for him lately. She's campaigning very well, but I think we are seeing some people emerge in polling and public statements who aren't going to vote for her on substance. Those folks may change their minds when and if it really comes down to her versus Trump, but they're going to be prime third party vote territory.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

I thought you said that facts don't matter to you?

I never said that. I said they don't matter to Senators voting on this.

In your world, whether or not he orchestrated anything with Schiff is completely beside the point.

In your incorrect characterization of my world.

If a conservative can somehow introduce that idea into "the narrative," say by publishing it under the guide of being a journalist and getting other people to repeat it, then it becomes part of the narrative.

If it happened, it's also part of the narrative. And these two things are not mutually exclusive.

In this case, for example, there is absolutely no evidence that Schiff "orchestrated" anything with the whistleblower, but you have accepted that GOP talking point as part of your reality, so now it's as good as factual.

Really? This isn't proof of coordination, but there's enough evidence there to get past summary judgment, Your Honor: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...608_story.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ling-complaint

Now, why would a seasoned public servant, conversant with procedure, go to Schiff's Committee instead of going to the IG? (You''l explain it, but again -- this is evidence more than adequate to get past summary judgment.)

No, I'm suggesting that Schiff is one of a great many Democrats who have thought there needs to be oversight of this Administration and who have increasingly supporting impeachment as it has become clear that the President's corruptly used the government to smear a political rival and advance his own re-election, and that the way you position Schiff as the key figure in this drama has little to do with reality and much to do with the conservative talking points you keep regurgitating.

There aren't enough laughing emojis for this. Schiff's put on more TV make-up in the past 3 years than the stars of all Real Housewives series put together. This guy is a ball of ambition, and he's riding his moment like any smart opportunist would. Trump is the best thing that's ever happened to the guy -- a moron who gifts Schiff almost as much free media time as he acquires himself. Schiff should run against Trump this year. Between the two of them, they've probably already got 75% of the airtime.

You tell a story in which Schiff is the key actor, and then you complain that Schiff made himself the key actor.

Exactly. He makes it look political.

I can tell a story about impeachment in which Schiff plays a minor role. Recall that the IG told him about the whistleblower's complaint, but not about the substance.

The Post and PBS seem to disagree.

Do you think that any other Democratic chair of the intelligence committee would have said, no worries, we don't need to know what that's about?

No. But they wouldn't have done so in the clearly opportunistic manner Schiff has, which makes it look political.

Trump is getting impeached because he ran a foreign policy to advance his own interests, not the country's, and because lots of people knew about it.

Yes he is.

If you think the story is about Adam Schiff, it's because you don't want to talk about Trump.

I think when Trump is acquitted, Schiff's handling of the matter will be viewed as a lot of the reason why.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

I never said that.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Whether it is or it isn't bullshit is immaterial. This is not about facts. This is a game.

The bold is in your original, btw.

I think when Trump is acquitted, Schiff's handling of the matter will be viewed as a lot of the reason why.

If and when Republican Senators decline to object to Trump's corruption and manifest unfitness for office, they will try to duck responsibility, and you will be buying it. The passive tense is very useful here -- Schiff's handling "will be viewed" as the reason -- there's an object, but we don't talk about the subject of the sentence. It's like the Never Trump Dance

The Never Trump Dance

Please nominate a Democrat we can vote for!

No not that one.

Nothing is ever the Republicans' fault. If only Democrats had done something different.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I thought you said that facts don't matter to you? In your world, whether or not he orchestrated anything with Schiff is completely beside the point. If a conservative can somehow introduce that idea into "the narrative," say by publishing it under the guide of being a journalist and getting other people to repeat it, then it becomes part of the narrative. In this case, for example, there is absolutely no evidence that Schiff "orchestrated" anything with the whistleblower, but you have accepted that GOP talking point as part of your reality, so now it's as good as factual.



No, I'm suggesting that Schiff is one of a great many Democrats who have thought there needs to be oversight of this Administration and who have increasingly supporting impeachment as it has become clear that the President's corruptly used the government to smear a political rival and advance his own re-election, and that the way you position Schiff as the key figure in this drama has little to do with reality and much to do with the conservative talking points you keep regurgitating. You tell a story in which Schiff is the key actor, and then you complain that Schiff made himself the key actor.

I can tell a story about impeachment in which Schiff plays a minor role. Recall that the IG told him about the whistleblower's complaint, but not about the substance. Do you think that any other Democratic chair of the intelligence committee would have said, no worries, we don't need to know what that's about? Trump is getting impeached because he ran a foreign policy to advance his own interests, not the country's, and because lots of people knew about it. If you think the story is about Adam Schiff, it's because you don't want to talk about Trump.

I'm not sure why you're arguing this with him. If he looks at what happened (and the fucking transcript is as clear as it gets even after we know that the Administration took other damaging shit out) and thinks to write that this was orchestrated by the whistle blower and Schiff, then he's not worth talking to.

Witness: Officer, that man tried to strike that woman.
Officer: I will arrest him.
Sebby: That witness and that officer have orchestrated a charge against that man.

It's blatantly fucking stupid. And you're wasting your time.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

The thing is, we all know this is Biden's best argument. And I think people understand the argument, and it provides a good, strong skeleton for the campaign as a whole.

What I can't figure out is why he's not getting a campaign in place that puts meat on those bones.

Maybe the whole campaign comes to life in December and January, to time the peak for NH and Iowa, and he's just conserving resources, focus and energy right now. But if Joe Biden doesn't win this, the person he will need to blame is Joe Biden, not anyone else.

Can't agree more with any of this. Hire Axelrod and get serious.

TM

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Really? This isn't proof of coordination, but there's enough evidence there to get past summary judgment, Your Honor: https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...608_story.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politic...ling-complaint

Now, why would a seasoned public servant, conversant with procedure, go to Schiff's Committee instead of going to the IG? (You''l explain it, but again -- this is evidence more than adequate to get past summary judgment.)

For the love of Christ, the article *you* just linked to says:

The revelation, first reported Wednesday by the New York Times, prompted an immediate jab by the president, who suggested without evidence that Schiff may have helped compose the whistleblower complaint.

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

But wait, there's more, answering your other question:

“He knew long before, and he helped write it, too,” Trump said at a news conference alongside Finnish President Sauli Niinisto. “The whole thing is a scam.”
An attorney for the whistleblower, whose identity has not been made public, rebutted Trump’s claim.
“Absolutely not,” attorney Mark Zaid said.
Andrew Clark, a Trump reelection campaign spokesman, questioned whether the whistleblower’s legal team coordinated with Schiff or his staff. Zaid said there was no contact between the whistleblower’s lawyers and Congress until weeks after the complaint was filed with the intelligence community’s inspector general.
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.
The officer — whose identity, aides said, is not known to Schiff — did just that, lodging a formal complaint with Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12.

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?

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The bold is in your original, btw.

Here's the full quote, in context:

Whether it is or it isn't bullshit is immaterial. This is not about facts. This is a game. If I'm playing this game, and my aim is to take out Trump, I want to make this about the substance of the call, not the prosecutor. The best way to do that is to have multiple Democrats speak about the investigation - spread the responsibility around, in a sort of "decision by committee" manner that obscures responsibility and individual actions. This blunts any attempt by Trump to create a referendum on Schiff.

Where do I even comment about what I think? I'm commenting on what matters within the political game afoot. And it is played as a game.

If and when Republican Senators decline to object to Trump's corruption and manifest unfitness for office, they will try to duck responsibility, and you will be buying it. The passive tense is very useful here -- Schiff's handling "will be viewed" as the reason -- there's an object, but we don't talk about the subject of the sentence. It's like the Never Trump Dance

I won't buy that at all. I've made it crystal clear that R Senators will vote their political needs, not the facts. Schiff will help them do that. He's the counter-villain.

Nothing is ever the Republicans' fault. If only Democrats had done something different.

When you lose, you don't blame the winner for winning.