Campaign 2020

[Big Magilla]

Gotta love this one:

The White House on Wednesday sent out talking points on how to spin the release of a summary of President Trump’s phone call to his counterpart in Ukraine — but emailed them to House Democrats, apparently by mistake.

“Let’s be clear, there was no quid pro quo for Ukraine to get US aid in exchange for looking into Biden and his son,” read one, referring to the president’s chat with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that included the corruption probe into Joe and Hunter Biden, according to Politico, which obtained a copy.

“This complaint was handled absolutely by the book and it was properly determined that no further action should be taken,” read another, referring to the Justice Department’s decision to not pursue a criminal investigation into the matter.

A source later told the website that the White House tried to recall the emails that were sent to Democratic lawmakers.

[Mister Tee]

This is the transcript they think makes them look GOOD? The unedited version must be treason on toast.

[Big Magilla]

I think it's a combination of the first two.

This was out there but not making news until Trump's lawyer Giuliani idiotically gave it a broader audience.

I don't think this is a pretext - it's CURRENT - it's not related to the Mueller report. The phone call came the day after Mueller's wan testimony which gave Trump credence to his presumed invincibility.

The Republicans are already pooh-poohing the newsworthiness of Pelosi's announcement which they claim doesn't change anything.

[Mister Tee]

Game on.

I think there are three possibilities as to what's brought us to this moment, and it may be some time before we know for sure which was the case:

1) Impeachment had totally flat-lined, this came from the blue and changed everyone's mind (including Nancy Pelosi's).

2) The Democrats have known for some time that this was out there, and were waiting for the moment it became public (through the IG's report, which applies a bipartisan patina) to initiate impeachment.

3) Impeachment was never as dead as reporting (and Pelosi quotes) were suggesting; the Dems have been ready to go on it for some time, and they were just waiting for a pretext -- which this clearly provides.

By the way, if you think Pelosi doesn't know how to do her job: observe the stream of members coming forward, hour by hour, declaring for impeachment. Such orchestration creates a sense of inevitability, and doesn't happen by accident.

[Greg]

Pelosi to announce formal impeachment inquiry of Trump:

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... p-n1058251

[Sonic Youth]

BREAKING NEWS
President Trump confirmed that he delayed aid to Ukraine before a call in which he pressed its leader to investigate Joe Biden.
He blamed Europe.

President Trump said Monday that he held up American aid to Ukraine that has become the subject of furious controversy because European countries have not paid their fair share to support the country, and pointed to the fact that the money was eventually released as evidence that he had done nothing wrong.



He is such... a fucking.... idiot.

[Mister Tee]

I don't know if McConnell is losing that seat. Amy McGrath is not providing to best candidate in the world.

Dems probably won't take that seat, but it won't be McGrath's fault. The partisan tilt of Kentucky is just too strong for a national office to go Democratic.

The governorship might flip, because that's strictly a local affair. But, as Rachel Bitecofer says (I highly recommend her Twitter feed), Dems are no more likely to win that race than they were to win the Senate seat in Tennessee last year.

Remember that race? Phil Bredesen, popular former governor, was ahead in some polls against the loathsome Marsha Blackburn -- but ended up losing by double-digits, because Tennessee is too-deep Republican for a Dem Senate candidate to break through. I applaud McGrath for taking the task on, but the only chance she'd have would be a national blowout of 1974 proportions that shifted the electorate 5-10 points past its natural inclination.

[Greg]

It's a big scandal but it doesn't compare with Obama wearing a tan suit or putting mayo on his hot dogs.

It was dijon mustard.

[taki15]

It's a big scandal but it doesn't compare with Obama wearing a tan suit or putting mayo on his hot dogs.

[Sabin]

OscarGuy wrote
Here's the thing that I think people need to get past for impeachment to be a real consideration. Opening an impeachment investigation is not the same thing is holding a vote on impeachment. Open the investigation so the public can be fully informed on the utter venality and corruption of this administration. Don't open it to score cheap political points or to remove him from office.

I mean, these two things are not dissimilar. Whenever members of Congress get a specific allotted time to speak their minds, there are always cheap political. points to gain.

OscarGuy wrote
Open it to investigate, then when the evidence is insurmountable and only those who believe every lie fed to them by this administration are the only ones standing with the president, when poll after poll show that Republicans will be shellacked in the next election (the McConnells, Collins, Gardners, and others), maybe then pro-removal forces will have the momentum to push the vote and push the president out. It might lead to wins for the Republicans in the Senate at that point, but if they remain insistent and refuse to vote for removal, they will be swept from office in the most sweeping demonstration of anti-corruption sentiment this nation has ever seen.

I don't know if McConnell is losing that seat. Amy McGrath is not providing to best candidate in the world.

But you make my favorite point. If impeachment remains an action and not a talking point and Trump's crimes are aired into the world, then Republican's names are on a ledger to protect the most dangerous President we've ever had. The hangman may not come for them in 2020 but soon.

OscarGuy wrote
It may seem hopeless now and I still understand Pelosi's desire to hold onto the house, but if we can get poll numbers in the deep red districts to show that Dems will continue to win in those districts, it would certainly turn the tides, but when poll after poll shows support for impeachment among Dems at 70% and below water for independents, it makes an incredibly difficult case to push for impeachment.

Quick question, do you think that support among Democrats being at 70% is low? 70% is high for an in-party issue. It would be low for support of the President.

Your point about Independents is well-taken.

[Big Magilla]

Interesting article on Nadler's Democratic challenger who claims that Nadler really doesn't want impeachment, but is doing what he is only because she is at his heels:

https://news.yahoo.com/citing-trump-imp ... 59102.html

[OscarGuy]

Here's the thing that I think people need to get past for impeachment to be a real consideration. Opening an impeachment investigation is not the same thing is holding a vote on impeachment. Open the investigation so the public can be fully informed on the utter venality and corruption of this administration. Don't open it to score cheap political points or to remove him from office.

Open it to investigate, then when the evidence is insurmountable and only those who believe every lie fed to them by this administration are the only ones standing with the president, when poll after poll show that Republicans will be shellacked in the next election (the McConnells, Collins, Gardners, and others), maybe then pro-removal forces will have the momentum to push the vote and push the president out. It might lead to wins for the Republicans in the Senate at that point, but if they remain insistent and refuse to vote for removal, they will be swept from office in the most sweeping demonstration of anti-corruption sentiment this nation has ever seen.

It may seem hopeless now and I still understand Pelosi's desire to hold onto the house, but if we can get poll numbers in the deep red districts to show that Dems will continue to win in those districts, it would certainly turn the tides, but when poll after poll shows support for impeachment among Dems at 70% and below water for independents, it makes an incredibly difficult case to push for impeachment.

[Big Magilla]

Trump's supporters are hanging on to the thread that there was no quid pro quo in the July 25th telephone conversation in which Trump asked the newly elected Ukraine president eight times to investigate Biden. He didn't say if you don't do this you won't get the 3/4 of a billion dollars we promised you. This, of course, is bullshit, the implication is clearly there, but unless this thing resonates beyond the Democrats in Congress it won't result in his removal from office which is the reason for impeachment in the House. Yes, they should do it anyway, but will they?

[Sabin]

Big Magilla wrote
I had a conversation last night with my 90-year-old neighbor who hasn't missed an election in his life and is typical of the Fox News Trump watchers. He was more agitated over something Representative Omar said that was apparently a big story on Fox News for three nights running Mon- Wed than by anything his "President Trump" said or did.

I'll spare everyone the long post and just say this is endlessly infuriating to me. Of course, Ilhan Omar is the real Anti-Semite. Not the man who stoked anti-globalist propaganda all the way to the White House. Not sure if I mentioned this on the board but a friend of my family was shot in the Squirrel Hill synagogue shooting and Ilhan Omar had nothing to do with it.

Mister Tee wrote
I wasn't exactly with Sonic before today -- I think impeachment was both appropriate and politically smart prior to this. (I'm with Rachel Bitecofer: Dems shying away from it -- when they clearly thought Trump was guilty as sin -- made them look weak/scared, which is far more politically damaging than alienating a few fence-sitters.) But I am with him today. This is clear as a bell: if we don't impeach a president over this, then impeachment effectively doesn't exist.

I've largely supported impeachment throughout, regardless of the outcome. To suggest that he can't be impeached "Because look at what happened to Republicans in 1999" I think misses the point that this is a different person, these are different crimes, and these are different stakes. He can run on being impeached or not being impeached. It doesn't matter. He's remarkably corrupt. The Democratic Party underestimates how tired the American people are of watching them do nothing. The American people want a leader. They'd rather have somebody horrible and powerful than enlightened but stymied.

[Mister Tee]

Sonic Youth wrote
Fuck Fox News. Are we all so whipped that we can't respond to anything he does without saying "But his base..." and "But Fox News..."? This, it would seem to me, is the next level of corruption and needs to be more forcefully dealt with. But if Pelosi (who i agreed with until today) and all the Democratic supporters are just going to sink into complacency and despondence, then I guess we shouldn't even bother.

I didn’t post that link out of complacency. I posted it out (I suppose) naive astonishment.

That said, over the past few months my political ideology has evolved. I used to scour candidates for their proposals and stances. I don’t care about that anymore. My number one priority is this: beating Republicans. All but the most benign of them have enabled and granted safe harbor to the worst our country has to offer. I want them to lose and lose badly for the longest stretch of time imaginable. For the most part, when Democrats lose, our most at-risk citizens are put in jeopardy. I don’t want to win. I want to crush. My choice is a young Democrat running with another young Democrat.

Walking down the street today, I had this thought -- not so much a new thought as a crystallization of what I've been thinking for a long time -- which partly echoes what Sabin is saying here:

Whatever its history and origins, the Republican party of today only exists to promote the interests of the extremely rich, racists, polluters and gun manufacturers -- and, most recently, it's shown itself to be willing to tolerate any level of criminality or treason to hold onto power, to continue to protect all those interests. If you have any issue beyond those, on which you hope to see action, your only hope is to vote for a Democrat. Any Democrat. Because no Republican is of any use on anything but those things I cited.

I wasn't exactly with Sonic before today -- I think impeachment was both appropriate and politically smart prior to this. (I'm with Rachel Bitecofer: Dems shying away from it -- when they clearly thought Trump was guilty as sin -- made them look weak/scared, which is far more politically damaging than alienating a few fence-sitters.) But I am with him today. This is clear as a bell: if we don't impeach a president over this, then impeachment effectively doesn't exist.

We obviously have to wait and see, but I think the potential's there for this to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Mueller's "I'm going to speak in as unreadable legalese as I can imagine", combined with Barr's corruption, made that impeachment case murky enough for Dems to be skittish about (and Pubs to bullshit through). This case is different. It's bloody fucking obvious. Don't underestimate the power of that.