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

For purposes of this back and forth, assume that I assume they are doing the worst of what they are accused of doing. This leaves us where? To have a conversation about how bad that is? No. That’s absurdly boring. It leads us to a conversation about what happens in response to what they’ve done.

But here’s the curious thing. We don’t know what Trump did or didn’t do. You are assuming facts based on articles. The whistleblower hasn’t spoken yet, nor has the transcript been released.

One could say, and I’d be hard pressed to refute this, that you are crafting an imaginary horse race and I am handicapping it. This would be mental masturbation without even an intellectual “finish.”

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

I'm completely in favor of televised, prime time hearings to go over the evidence with a fine tooth comb. Ideally, we'd find a format that limited grandstanding by either witnesses or questioners and kept the focus on the facts and evidence.

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

Suggest this to your Senator.

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

Boy, you jumped quickly from how "we" don't know exactly what Trump did or didn't do -- you are always good at finding epistemic uncertainty in things you don't want to talk about, but don't seem to have any problem with horserace political coverage that is 100% speculation -- to suggesting that "I" am crafting an imaginary horserace. Dude, *you* are the one who finds horseraces compelling. If you think I "assumed" something in some post, point it out. But whatever I'm doing, I'm not watching horses race.

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

I never said you assumed something, or assumed I assumed something. That's why I told you in my last post to assume I assumed something. If I thought you'd already assumed something, I'd have stated what I thought you'd assumed.

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

That senator will tell you, "Then you'd be making it impossible for me to acquire press coverage other than that for which I have to pay."

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

If we'd that sort of thing, we could have avoided Vietnam, Iraq, the 2008 Bailout, the Clinton Impeachment, etc.

We can't have that kind of truth. The biggest problem with the internet is it's shown too much of "how the sausage is made." And who eats most of it.

It's dogma of the left that Trump has destroyed truth by waging war on the media. This is nonsense. The truth could never be and never was fully provided to the public because it's too much for them to consider. It'd paralyze them with details, as there are endless sides to every issue as it's rotated in the process of discovering truth. The world can't exist without a shit ton of lies and narratives greasing the gears. If anything, Trump has bizarrely aided the forces that craft narratives by showing them how to push those narratives through in an era where the internet scrutinizes every policy or decision. And it was simple as, "Discredit Everything."

He's gifted the people who succeed him with an immense power. And don't think for a second that, whatever party they're from, they won't use it. The "fake news" defense is a permanent feature going forward. One could get mad at Trump for pulling that genie from the bottle. But decades of people like us getting behind narratives aimed at the lowest common denominator of the American public were necessary for Trump to make this possible.

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

Uh, OK. You've got to be right at least some of the time.

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

I am corrected. I did say you assumed something, and you did. You assumed Trump did what the biased articles you cited claim he did. You did not assume I assumed something, which is why I told you to assume I assume the worst of the accusations true.

If you wish to discuss whether Trump did or did not do something (which I do not, as I’d prefer to just assume for purposes of discussion that he did it, as opposed to your basis for that assumption - desire that it be true and provide basis for impeachment), you should cite a source with facts about what he did or did not do, rather than an article about Giuliani doing what he’s hired to do: Spin.

But you don’t have and can’t have that info. All you can offer is conjecture. Why engage in a discussion of what he might have done based on articles from clearly biased sources? Why is this any better than assuming he did it and handicapping how it turns out?

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

Where did I do that? I said your fondness for horserace coverage instead of substantive reporting reveals a gnawing emptiness at your core. That's about you, not Trump, and it's not an assumption, except insofar as I assume that you mean what you say here. Actually, maybe that is an unwarranted assumption.

(Also, I said that suggestions that Biden has a scandal here are bogus. I stand by that, based on all the reporting I have seen.)

But it's not about Trump! I don't think we know exactly what Trump has been doing, but I think there is ample evidence that he has been doing something untoward, and that many other people have been involved too (including Giuliani, who has been hired not only to spin on TV but also to travel to Ukraine and meet with the government). We could talk about the details of what we know and don't know, and of how the story might develop, but you've said you're not interested in all that.

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

You cite two articles. One asserts Pence pressed Ukraine illegally. The other asserts Guiliani was engaged in deflection. Then, when I cite the Politico article which views things from a horse race perspective, you get annoyed and tell me I've no soul.

But here's the thing. The Politico article was just a prediction piece. It was guessing where the political fallout may land. The articles you were citing were suggesting, before facts are known, that cover-ups and VP crimes are also afoot. You're not predicting political situations. You're cherry picking sources that assert the likely presence of certain facts. That's the opposite of substance.

I say it's reluctance to get into substance where we've no facts. As opposed to horse race predicting based on worst case scenarios. The latter is admitted guesswork. The former is bullshit based on reporters' conjecture.

You cite a nonsense article by a reporter stating the investigation of Hunter Biden came up with nothing and there's nothing to see there. This may be true. But based on something from TPM?

What sources other than TPM? Fox is saying the same thing, btw, as CNN has reported.

So you cite a story where someone says Trump did this. Somebody else cites a story that says Trump did not do that, or did something else. People argue about which reporters' second hand story is more likely correct. Then people argue about which source is more or less biased in which direction.

This is useful conversation why? Have you learned nothing from the Mueller debacle? How the press did exactly that, and we did exactly that, it was hot air.

Why not just assume the worst case scenario and wonder how it plays out politically. Then we can run the best case scenario, in which Trump has not done what is alleged, and see how that works out politically. This is actually far more useful than arguing competing news stories alleging to have the truth about what happened because... they don't. And they won't.

I suspect that, consistent with Trump's past behavior, he walked right up to the line of culpability, but never made it clear he was withholding funds from Ukraine for a Biden investigation. As goofy as he is, he has a skill for staying smack in the middle of a grey zone on this kind of stuff. If I'm right, as facts came out, this place would devolve into a silly argument about:

1. Can a crime be proven?
2. Can an impeachable offense be proven?

These are political questions ultimately. Even the first one, as we saw in the Mueller mess. Why have these arguments when we can go straight to the horse race and examine what happens politically in the limited potential scenarios?

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

What is your problem with TPM's accuracy, when all of the reporting says the claims about the Bidens are bogus?

Quite a lot, but maybe different things than you. For one, I don't think it was a debacle.

If you're going to engage in mental masturbation, that sounds as fine as the rest of it, but that's not actually what your article was doing.

It's funny how quickly you switch from epistemic helplessness at the prospect of ever knowing what Trump might have done to confidence that he walked right up to the line of culpability. It's why I'm not going to both to explain why the reporting I cited seems pretty solid in terms of relating known facts and suggesting the limits of that knowledge. You don't really care -- it's just a rhetorical trick you've picked up from MSNBC or CNN.

Two reasons:

1) Political questions are "political questions" because they are too important to be left to courts, not because they are unanswerable.

2) The kind of crap you posted from Politico is, as I said, the sort of cotton candy that will melt in your mouth and leave you kinda sick, and won't leave you feeling like you consumed anything. It's "analysis" that will be obsolete in a few days, and that no one will read for anything other than sociological value. The very point of horserace journalism is that it's out of date shortly, and you need to get more. My daughter would eat as much cotton candy as she could. I'm an adult.

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

The article is written with a clear bias. We don't know that the charges are all bogus based on anything asserted in that article.

The most significant fact offered in support of the argument there's no there there is that the investigation had been shelved before Biden allegedly killed it. Well, that's not exculpatory. In the Mueller fallout, the people who sought Trump's head argued that even if there had been no crime, his efforts were still obstruction. Also, in the case of Manafort, it was no defense to say, "the FBI had dropped this investigation." Indeed it had. Then it resumed it, and now Manafort is in jail.

And that very article admits that Burisma was dirty.

For the finale, why would a burnout like Hunter Biden be invited to that board? Of course for political influence. It's classic Eastern European sleaze politics. Ya think a reputable US Fortune 100 firm would have a guy like that on its board? But again -- this is not a crime. So I agree with you that there is probably not much to the alleged Biden scandal in Ukraine. And the compelling defenses on which this rests are those which you have ignored in the past when they were raised by Trump.

(This gets to why discussing facts with you and most other haters - of any President - is pointless and devolves into advocacy disguised as fact-finding. More on that later.)

I don't mean the report was a debacle. I mean the circus around it was a debacle because a bunch of people told everyone there'd be a smoking gun, which never materialized, and then in the aftermath, these people screamed for an impeachment nevertheless, and the Democrats were only saved from a total disaster by the shrewd political maneuverings of Pelosi. (Yup, I am handing out medals for her expert jockeying in the immediate post-Mueller horse race.)

It's better than four months of everyone here throwing half opinion/half fact articles culled from Google at each other.

Horse race handicapper that I am, I am predicting that once more, we will be in a grey area. You may not think it's grey in terms of whether Trump stepped over a line. I may not even think it's grey. What we think is immaterial. In the court of public opinion, the Right has adequate media to spin the narrative however it likes. As does the left. They spin at each other, offering the best facts for their arguments, ignoring the facts that undermine their arguments, and the public views the mess as follows:

He probably did something technically wrong again. He's a dipshit and probably a criminal of some variety. But these fucking losers need to get a grip and just beat the fucking guy at the ballot box. Both sides really fucking suck.

I actually understand the urge to find irrefutable facts that prove the guy you hate is guilty. I railed against Bush as a war criminal after Iraq. Threw out fact after fact that I cherry picked from friendly sources to show that Iraq was based on an intentional lie. And I had really, really solid proofs. You know what happened there? Nothing. Even here, Slave argued against me and had enough evidence to throw what I thought was ironclad proof into question.

Those discussions are wasted breath. You will never convince another person they are wrong, particularly in regard to politics. Here, all that can accrue from the discussion you desire is an echo chamber of people saying, "Oh yeah, now we got him!" and me saying, "Are you sure, because here are some holes in your theories." Is this better than just looking at the potential political outcomes using probable facts:

1. He did what was alleged
2. He did something that falls in the grey zone
3. He did not do what was alleged

Ty's determination of what should happen to Trump is worth nothing. All that is of value is what the politicians who will decide Trump's impeachment think should happen to Trump.

A conversation about what should have happened, should Trump skate once more, would be the height of mindless navel-gazing. Just like my rants about what should have happened to W. It was hot air when I engaged in it, and it'll be hot air if you engage in it now.

BUT, if it entertains you, have at it. As I said, this place is for amusement.

Maybe. But I like the horse race. Despite those animals giving off a good bit of methane, there's still a lot less hot air than there is in the discussion you desire.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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

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. It's an effort to smear Biden for political reasons. On these facts, when Trump pressures Ukraine to "investigate," everyone involved understands that he is trying to get Ukraine to manufacture problems for Biden. 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.

So why are you pretending there is?

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

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

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

Trump thought that memo was going to help him?

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

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.

Of course he is.

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?

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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

TM

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

Nope.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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

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....

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

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?

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

For more detail, see this thread from the National Review's David French: https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/sta...69185009459200

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

I'd love to be on that world leaders' facebook group where they discuss the best way to get what they want out of him.

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

Whatever. Engaging you on something like this is as smart as pounding one's head against an anvil.

TM

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

Are you serious? First of all, you can get a criminal conviction with only circumstantial evidence if a jury decides it doesn't have reasonable doubt. But more importantly, the question is impeachment, not a prosecution. There aren't going be criminal charges and no judge is going to hear the case. The Congress is going to gather a lot of evidence, and then each Member is going to have to decide how to vote. No judge or statute tells Congress how to do that. It is, as you already said, a political question.

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

The issue is, is there enough grey there for more than 1/3 of the Senate to say it's not enough to convict regardless of politics.

There is. If I were a senator's PR flack, I could easily spin that as a bunch of potentially bad facts, but no conclusive proof. "It's troubling, concerning, but I have a Constitutional duty to uphold, and this simply isn't enough to undo the will of the voters." Easy peasy. All. Day. Long.*

(As an aside, you've never been in the crim trenches, have you? A he said/she said on a crime of intent, with just circumstantial evidence is super difficult to prove. That gets pleaded out. The only time you see that go forward is when somebody's wired. Or somebody flips. Even if you flipped Zelensky, the conversation isn't clearly a quid pro quo. If the Ds can flip an insider who Trump confided with about holding back the gun money to get dirt on Biden, then you'd have him by the balls. That's where it'd get interesting.)

_____
* I'd also encourage more aggressively political R colleagues to spin this situation as analogous to the Steele Dossier, which I'd say was an equally troubling instance of a domestic admin using foreign intel against political opponents. Go ahead and argue the distinctions. Politically, they'll never be heard. Voters will see equivalence, and senators will acquire political cover.

...But this is all on evidence to date. Maybe more will come out. The horse race is just starting.

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

Yes, I'm sure you could do that.

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

It absolutely is, but it doesn't need to be. It is a crime for a campaign to request anything of value from a foreign national.

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

Crime of intent. Prove intent.

Also, he’s acting in official, not campaign, capacity. Prove otherwise.

Like the Clapper situation. Everyone knows he lied. But good luck proving intent to deceive Congress.

You have to flip an accomplice if this call is all you have.

ETA: Is Rudy the accomplice to flip? https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinio...dy-ncna1058196

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

How can you be such a brick? Rudy Giuliani already has a job -- what do you think you're doing?

The burden of proof in a criminal case has everything to do with the nature of a criminal case, which -- as you know, but pretend to keep forgetting -- this is not. Why do you just assume that a Congressman should use the same standard?

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

What the hell are you talking about in that first sentence?

On the second, which is slightly more coherent, who cares what any House member thinks? The only people who count are Senators.

Some bastardized version of crim or civil or mix of both standards will be used by more than 1/3 of senators to justify acquittal. Impeachment standards are vague and court standards speak directly to how to consider evidence.