Re: Whistling down the alley
 

That came from Real Clear Politics.

ETA: No, Realclearinvestigations.com. Under section, “Trump, Russia and the Beltway.”

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

From the Twitter:

PRESS: how will you pay for your plans?

TRUMP: mexico

PRESS: ok

GOP: economics

PRESS: sure

WARREN: a detailed set of reforms including a wealth tax and spending adjustments

PRESS: [lowers glasses] sounds a little uNrEaLiStIc

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

"or something"

If Schiff responded to those reports in a way that validates them, he outs the whistleblower. They don't know who it is, and he does.

There is no upside for Schiff to talk about the whistleblower's identity. Republicans are doing it as an excuse to talk about something other than what the Administration did.

Not sure why you so credulously repeat conservative talking points.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Now RCP is right wing tripe? What isn’t in your world?

There’s huge upside, because if RCP and everyone else driving the narrative are correct about the WB, they’re “owning the space.” Schiff’s going to come out with testimony on the heels of a national “jury pool” already half or more biased against him.

From a PR perspective, this WB can and is being spun as a D operative. People don’t buy anonymous sources. Schiff needs to counter that.

This isn’t a conservative talking point. This is a simple assessment of strategy.

And you need to stop using that cheap comment. I think you think it works. It’s actually boring. If you want to take cheap shots, do something that interests me.

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

The study he’s citing is from Brookings. I agree with your point. I do not agree with his.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

The sixth sentence neither states the policy nor what violated it. Your point?

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

I had a few. One was that it was hard to tell from your post whether you were under the impression that no investigation had been conducted, or whether you knew that an investigation had been conducted but were making a substantive complaint about what McDonald's did in the guise of a process complaint. Since you were being intentionally or unintentionally obscure, I said, "If you only read....," emphasis on if.

I had other points in the final sentences, the ones you quoted but ignored. I mean, it's pretty clear what the real issue is, but you keeping avoiding it.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Dude, RCP is an aggregator. I have clicked through to see who they are aggregating here, but I will wager it's a right-wing source, since mainstream media so far is not rushing to unmask the whistleblower.

eta: Paul Sperry. Give me a f*cking break.

And I responding about "the narrative." The "narrative" is about the President's conduct. No one that I've seen has identified anything that the whistleblower got anything wrong. Anyone talking about the whistleblower as if it matters to anything is trying to change the subject.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Physician, um....

Heal thyself!

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

The story is written by a guy named Sperry. Not aggregated. In-house content.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Of course. But still, the relationship must be investigated to get to the truth of whether it was in fact coercive.

A policy, if this is the case, that dictates firing simply for having the relationship, is indefensible. It’s lazy - common risk minimization garbage-think created by lawyers and HR morons.

That’s not to say such a policy is ineffective. It’s very effective, in the same way making it illegal to cross the road ensures no one is struck by a car.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

This Paul Sperry. What is wrong with you?

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

The whistleblower is no longer a key witness. Even leaving aside that Schiff is legally and morally obligated to protect their identity, talking about him doesn't help the Dems or impeachment in any way.

Why? You've already bought into the distraction.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

I'm not sure what you mean by "in fact coercive." I said there had to be an inescapable element of coercion. You agreed. So what is there to investigate?

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

I didn’t look up anything about the guy. But fuck that attacking the messenger stuff. Look at the facts cited supporting the ID of the whistleblower. It looks accurate. And the WB’s lawyers are incensed about it, which indicates he’s on the mark.

But as I said at the outset, might this be a brilliant rope a dope by Schiff?

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Inescapable means one cannot help but perceive coercion. Inescapable is not a synonym of “proven.”

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

1. Only if you accept the D framing. You think the Senate will do that?

2. I’m talking about the WB. I’m not buying anything. The people who’ll do the buying or not buying are senators and the voters who would ostensibly pressure them.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Inescapable because it's always there. If you're screwing your boss, you're getting screwed by your boss.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Obviously.

Yes! Completely! Don't attack my messenger! Attack the other messenger! It's very important to ignore where hearsay is coming from, unless you are choosing to make a deal about where hearsay is coming from!

This is the board equivalent of stepping on a rake. I love it.

I looked. There are no facts there that show that this poor guy is the whistleblower. But if you are in the White House, that hardly matters.


That is truly a stupid thought, but I suppose that if you have no idea who Paul Sperry is, it makes a certain ignorant sense.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

This sums up every single post you've ever written no matter how shitty, incompetent, or outright evil either side has been.

TM

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

How do you figure? The whistleblower reported having heard, second hand, about the things he blew the whistle on. Since then, people will first hand knowledge have testified, under oath, to what he reported. He is no longer a key witness.

Yes, you're allowing yourself to be distracted by the right wing's strategy of talking about the whistleblower like his ID matters.

Polls
 

Biden may not be electable, but damn it if he isn't still leading.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/04/u...ren-polls.html

I hold out hope that the more people hear Warren the more people will fall in love with her. But if she manages to win the primary and lose the fucking election, I will burn this country to the ground with my mind. And if she ekes out a Presidential win and the Republicans hold the fucking Senate, I will blame each and every one of you on this board and will be as annoying as fucking Hank is with everything here until the end of time.

TM

Re: Polls
 

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.)

Re: Polls
 

Being a Boomer (OK?), I remember (just barely) when we elected Jimmy Carter because Dems wanted a centrist who could win after the McGovern fiasco. That was cool, it was great to win, except we got... Jimmy Carter.

I like Joe Biden. I'm waiting, though, to see who the next Dem to step it up and come into the frontrunner pack is. It won't surprise me if it's none of the current top three who make it.

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

WTF, Bernie (from the Guardian):

Apple hasn't helped create California's housing crisis. Californians did that all on their own. Apple has done about a $2.5 bn pledge worth to help more than Bernie has, from what I can tell.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

If it's a power game, you're both miserable sorts. And if you're losing, shame on you.

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

I think he's trying to articulate:

"You've built a $205 bil. cash reserve by paying Chinese serfs in gulags to make your phones rather than pay US workers to do so and instead amass only $120 bil. in cash reserves."

It's a point a lot like NYC's rejection of Amazon. It's complex, because blame is on both sides.

Oops, I did it again.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

We're both lawyers, as opposed to Senators gobbling up any possible political cover they can to acquit. Schiff's a liability in this regard. He should be removed from the team. But I suspect Pelosi isn't eager for that. He owns this, like he owned the build-up to Mueller. Nancy needs him to throw under the bus when the vote comes down in the Senate.

She's already getting ahead of the train wreck that 2020 is looking to become.

I'm not distracted by it. I'm seeing it, and seeing that it's working, and I'm suggesting that Schiff is fucking up. Never leave a vacuum. He's leaving a vacuum.

I see his strategy. It's not entirely unwise, not malpractice, but I think it's a loser. He thinks if he frames the narrative on facts alone, and avoids discussion of the whistleblower's possible motives, he can avoid talking about the whistleblower. This actually just makes the whistleblower more interesting. You know how in direct, you get the ugly facts out first to blunt the other side's using them in cross? Schiff has to do that now.

Also, he assumes a jury interested in facts. The Senators don't care about facts. They care about their political futures. This means they'll follow what they think are their constituents' leanings. Their constituents are not rational actors. Their constituents will want to hear "the full story," and the full story will include the whistleblower.

Schiff brung the kid to the dance. Got to take him out on the floor.

Re: Polls
 

Whose only sin was offering the mother of all mic drops -- which still, still to this day -- is the greatest and most honest political speech of our lifetimes:

https://millercenter.org/the-preside...fidence-speech

Some wonder how one might laugh and mock those freaking out about Trump. The truly confused cling to the idea Trump is more problem than symptom. And some will hide what they truly think, because an accurate assessment would compel them to say to themselves, "I'm not really interested in equity, honesty, or fair and honorable government unless it's of a sort that won't gore my ox... a happy Biden/Clinton sort... or a moderated and controlled Warren sort*... but never a Bernie sort."

Carter, I suspect, looks at Trump and thinks, "I told ya so."

______
* She's being bent right now by the party "realists" (read Clinton wing), and I fear she's quite bendable.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

I'm not attacking your messenger. I'm attacking Schiff's decision not to get ahead of the attacks on your messenger.

Buy a leaf blower.

The report is filled with facts supporting the allegation. That's why I stated, even if Sperry is right wing, is he wrong in ID'ing this person? In some regards, the ID appears so easy, I couldn't believe it. Hence I assumed Schiff was offering up a red herring. Yes, that's conspiracy thinking, but also yes, the RCI piece was strong enough to render this its only immediately sensible rebuttal.

Re: Potential H-Bomb
 

You're buying the bullshit.

The Republicans love to personally attack every democrat, and it is all projection. The only reason Schiff is under attack now is because all the bullshit projected at Pelosi has failed to get traction.

As always, turn off the Fox, they made you a moron

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

"But fuck that attacking the messenger stuff" you said, obliviously, as you posted about outing the whistleblower.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

No. It really isn't. You can tell, because the reporter has no personal knowledge that the person he has named is the whistleblower. You could have run the same report calling Fred Fielding Deep Throat, but he wasn't.

It's odd to me that you have such strong instincts to side with criminal defendants, a sense of the unfairnesss that's possible when the state machinery is used to prosecute someone, but you have no similar sense of siding with the little guy when the state uses its resources to smear someone. Whether or not he is the whistleblower, that guy does not deserve to become the target of right-wing media, and it's going to fuck with his life.

Re: Potential H-Bomb
 

In fairness, they are attacking him because Trump is attacking him, because Trump feels threatened by him.

Every complaint I've heard about Schiff has been bullshit. Maybe there's a good one out there I've missed. It's just an effort to delegitimize someone who threatens the President.

Re: Potential H-Bomb
 

I've been on cable news. I've never watched cable news.

You miss my point. Schiff has become, by his own efforts, a target. When you want to find a counter-villain, or simply focus ire, it's best to have a target. If this impeachment inquiry were conducted by committee and there were no face emerging as the leader or organizer of it, Trump would have no option but to fight the substance.

Instead, he's been gifted the ability to focus on Schiff. Hell, Schiff has been on talk shows for years now - at least twice on Bill Maher as I can recall - talking about how he's going to get Trump. Ya think it might be a better idea to have someone else running point on this investigation in the moment? If you're prosecuting a case, the last thing you want is a polarizing prosecutor.

Re: Potential H-Bomb
 

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.

Re: Potential H-Bomb
 

It is amazing how quickly all the flunkies take their cues from the boss. It's like they don't even need to think about it first.

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

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).

The Rs are blundering here. The defense that Trump has a duty to root out corruption and Biden just happened to be suspected to be corrupt is one of the dumbest I've heard. But the Ds haven't exactly plotted this out too well. This could have been executed much more cleanly.

Re: Potential H-Bomb
 

That's brilliant, Sebby. Since Republicans attack any Democratic leaders, Democratics should get rid of leaders and run Congress and their party as an autonomous collective.

My favorite part of your post is the suggestion that Schiff has become a GOP target "by his own efforts." Damn straight! If he didn't want to be delegitimized, why did he get so much seniority in Congress?

Re: Whistling down the alley
 

Could be wrong, but round the beltway, that name is the WB.

The state isn't doing anything to this guy. Trump and his political party are doing it. It is unfair. But it's also unavoidable. There was no way in hell that once Schiff decided to use this complaint to seek impeachment, this poor guy's name wasn't coming out.

What I'd like to know is when Schiff and the WB first connected. If the WB did this out of a sense of duty and Schiff later ran with it, that's one thing. If Schiff was in any way involved in drafting the WB's complaint, we're in more of a caveat emptor, or "buy the ticket, take the ride" situation.