Impeachment

[Cerin]

Faramond, please don't let being misunderstood get you down. I've been involved in countless such exchanges, both as the misunderstand-er and the misunderstand-ee. You are the one who knows what you said and meant.

[Dave_LF]

I'm not sure what kind of argument we're even talking about. The quid pro quo request happened, and he essentially admitted to it himself. So given that by his own admission we already know he is guilty of doing what he is accused of, what other argument is there possibly to make? If that's not enough, what possibly could be? Do we need a recording of him literally saying "I'm going to commit a crime now"??

Sorta, apparently:

pic.png (41.54 KiB) Viewed 2220 times

Today's news is that no less a right-wing fanatic than John Bolton was alarmed at the time by Trump's Ukraine actions. He called it a "drug deal" and wanted lawyers brought in.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1066141

[yovargas]

I think before an anti-Trump person could attempt to make an argument that would sway these voters, they would first have to try to understand Trump-supporters' support of Trump. In order to try to understand Trump supporters' support of Trump, an anti-Trump person would first have to learn to regard Trump supporters as sound human beings. I don't see an indication of that kind of paradigm shift taking place (although someone more out and about in the world and virtual world could assess better than myself). My answer to your question, then (how many anti-Trump people are capable of this), is, very few, if any.

This makes sense, of course, if we're talking about his general approval ratings. But if we're talking about arguments for impeachment, why anyone likes Trump isn't - or shouldn't be - relevant.

[Frelga]

Today's news is that no less a right-wing fanatic than John Bolton was alarmed at the time by Trump's Ukraine actions. He called it a "drug deal" and wanted lawyers brought in.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump- ... t-n1066141

Speculation that Bolton was the whistelblower emerged shortly after the story broke. That would be quite a plot twist.

Eta But wait, there's more.

Politico
https://twitter.com/AndrewDesiderio/sta ... 54592?s=19

BREAKING: Fiona Hill told House impeachment investigators that she had at least two meetings with NSC lawyer John Eisenberg about Rudy Giuliani’s Ukraine efforts, according to a person with direct knowledge of her testimony. Both meetings were at the urging of Bolton.

Story TK

The article is here. I haven't read it yet.

Trump's former Russia aide met with White House lawyer over Giuliani

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Apparently, the White House attempted to limit what Fiona Hill could testify about.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics ... spartanntp

It is unclear whether she avoided testifying about anything. It sounds like she did not.

[Dave_LF]

It sounds like she did not testify, or it sounds like she failed to not testify?

[Cerin]

I think before an anti-Trump person could attempt to make an argument that would sway these voters, they would first have to try to understand Trump-supporters' support of Trump. In order to try to understand Trump supporters' support of Trump, an anti-Trump person would first have to learn to regard Trump supporters as sound human beings. I don't see an indication of that kind of paradigm shift taking place (although someone more out and about in the world and virtual world could assess better than myself). My answer to your question, then (how many anti-Trump people are capable of this), is, very few, if any.

This makes sense, of course, if we're talking about his general approval ratings. But if we're talking about arguments for impeachment, why anyone likes Trump isn't - or shouldn't be - relevant.

Your arguments for impeachment would be weighing against something. Understanding what that something is and how much it weighs would inform your argument. Otherwise, you'd just be giving a generic spiel.

[Griffon64]

I think before an anti-Trump person could attempt to make an argument that would sway these voters, they would first have to try to understand Trump-supporters' support of Trump. In order to try to understand Trump supporters' support of Trump, an anti-Trump person would first have to learn to regard Trump supporters as sound human beings. I don't see an indication of that kind of paradigm shift taking place (although someone more out and about in the world and virtual world could assess better than myself). My answer to your question, then (how many anti-Trump people are capable of this), is, very few, if any.

I am a Trump detractor but I think I somewhat understand Trump supporters' support of Trump. By the way, I used to not understand at all how anybody could support him and believe him because from my point of view that is just ... no ... but I don't believe tens of millions of Americans suddenly turned into unsound people either, so I talked and read and listened.

So, Trump supporters. Many of them are furious at their opponents, steadfast in their support of him, and of course they are. Why wouldn't they be? He is the only person defending their religion, their beliefs, their country, against the destructive forces of liberalism and secularism and communism and socialism. I totally get it. If I believed what Trump supporters believe I would support him too.

I think I can see their reasoning and honestly, it is perfectly sound. They evaluated what they believe, what they ingested from news sources over the years --- in other words, they evaluated what is factual to them, parsed it rationally and soundly, and arrived at the conclusion that supporting Trump is not merely in their best interest, but is a noble stance to take in the face of unbelievable corruption and even outright evil.

I don't believe anymore that most Trump supporters are stupid, or uneducated, or any of that. Most Trump supporters are people like you and me. They work alongside me at work where they are rational and clever and able to grasp and reason through complicated concepts. It is pure laziness on the part of Trump detractors to pretend they are otherwise.

The part where I diverge from them is in what we believe are factual. And even so, I still completely understand how anybody in a certain cocoon of beliefs can come to believe the kind of things Trump supporters believe to be fact. I used to regard many of those beliefs as true myself. It was only when I moved out of an ecosystem supporting those beliefs ( and a lot of this started to happen on TORC, actually, along with me starting at a job outside of my super conservative hometown and being exposed to smart, clever, kind people who weren't just like me in terms of race, religion, upbringing and worldviews ) that I realized that the world was different from what I was told. I didn't like being wrong about what I believed then, and I still don't like being wrong. Character flaw. So I always try to cast my net wider than my comfort zone because the real truth is out there at the edges of my understanding.

It is and always will be a work in progress but I find I go through the world with a lot less anger if I look to understand the world and everyone in it instead of trying to shut the world out or force it into any mold I was told it belongs in.

A big part of the problem with the core of both of the US' current two parties is sound, rational, intelligent people forcing the world into the mold they were told it belongs in. A sound, rational mind at work on a set of facts is a beautiful thing but it can also be terrible. Humans reason by making pictures out of pieces and we don't let go of our pictures easily. When those pictures slot into the world view we developed through how we we raised, who we hung out with in our formative years, who we hang out with now and what we read and consume in the media, we guard them fiercely.

The rhetoric flying around from all over right now is us ( me included ) guarding our pictures.

EDIT: And it is because I think I understand where Trump supporters come from and I understand how core supporting him is to their beliefs that I don't believe for a moment that he will be a flash in the pan aberration, or that the tens of millions opposing impeaching him can be swayed by any kind of argument or words. People do not just change their core beliefs overnight.

[River]

It sounds like she did not testify, or it sounds like she failed to not testify?

The latter. Simply put, she did not toe the White House's line and broke the code of silence.

In other news, apparently John Bolton referred to whatever it was Giuliani was cooking up in Ukraine as a "drug deal" (I'm pretty sure he meant that euphemistically). While I realize Bolton's got a reputation for cantankerousness, he's never had one for sleaze. So that puts another interesting light on things.

[yovargas]

Your arguments for impeachment would be weighing against something. Understanding what that something is and how much it weighs would inform your argument. Otherwise, you'd just be giving a generic spiel.

My "generic spiel": should a president who exerts pressure on a foreign government to investigate their political opponents, in exchange for financial aid, be allowed to continue in their office? That is the question - the only question - at hand.

I would love to hear your answer.

[Cerin]

Griffon, it sounds like you'd be an ideal person to try and talk to a Trump supporter about impeachment. (If there are many anti-Trump people out there with insights like yours, obviously the chances would be better than I suggested.)

[Cerin]

Your arguments for impeachment would be weighing against something. Understanding what that something is and how much it weighs would inform your argument. Otherwise, you'd just be giving a generic spiel.

My "generic spiel": should a president who exerts pressure on a foreign government to investigate their political opponents, in exchange for financial aid, be allowed to continue in their office? That is the question - the only question - at hand.

I would love to hear your answer.

The answer to that question is, 'no.' But this is not a persuasive presentation (if we're still talking about Faramond's hypothetical campaign).

[yovargas]

But this is not a persuasive presentation (if we're still talking about Faramond's hypothetical campaign).

Why not?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

It sounds like she did not testify, or it sounds like she failed to not testify?

Sorry. It sounds like she did not follow the White House's direction not to testify about certain things, if reports about her testimony are too be believed. She certainly testified about plenty, as she was reportedly in there for more than ten hours. Still, it is unclear whether there were things that she refused to talk about based on the White House direction.

I wonder whether the Democrats are going to try to get testimony from John Bolton, given the things that Hill reportedly talked about. And Gordon Sondland's testimony promises to be a lot more intense given the things that she reportedly said about him. The White House would have done better to let him get his testimony over with last week before she testified.

[Cerin]

But this is not a persuasive presentation (if we're still talking about Faramond's hypothetical campaign).

Why not?

Because they will not accept your premise, and then you will be out of things to say.

[yovargas]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by my premise. Do you mean they won't accept that this is what happened?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To the extent that I think there is a target audience, I don't think it is Trump's base. I don't think he was all that far off when he said that he could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue and they still would vote for him. I think the target audience, such as it is, is independent and swing voters. It is hard to say what information might sway these voters, and it remains to be seem whether the net effect with these voters will be a backlash against the Democrats for pursuing impeachment.

But I honestly don't think that they are proceeding with a target audience in mind. I think Schiff in particularly in genuinely interested in getting to the bottom of what happened, and is genuinely outraged at the conduct that is being revealed. That might seem naïve, but I really do believe that to be the case, given his history, both as prosecutor who was the first to convict an FBI agent of spying for Russia, and as a Congressman who literally owes his seat to the last impeachment effort (his seat was held by another former prosecutor who was one of the leaders in the effort to impeach Bill Clinton, and Schiff defeated him in a then largely Republican-leading district because of the backlash caused by the impeachment effort). I think the Democrat leadership went forward with this despite the potential political implications, not because of the potential political implications, because they are genuinely outraged by what they were learning.

Today's witness is Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs George Kent. Like other State Department witnesses, Kent was instructed not to testify and was served with a subpoena. According to CNN, "Kent was among the career officials who sought to shield former US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie 'Masha' Yovanovitch from the campaign of false allegations against her in March 2019, according to internal emails turned over to Congress by State Department Inspector General Steve Linick in early October." Also, "Those emails show Kent, along with Acting Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Phil Reeker, working to provide department counselor Ulrich Brechbuhl and Undersecretary for Political Affairs David Hale with facts to counter the conspiratorial narratives being pushed about the career diplomat."

Like to yov, to me it is already absolutely clear-cut that there was an attempt to pressure Ukraine to conduct investigations specifically to politically benefit Mr. Trump by withholding critical military aid, as well as a coveted meeting between the countries presidents. But there is not likely to be a specific smoking gun document that says "let's make this a quid pro quo". You have to at least put two and two together to get four.

[Sunsilver]

So, Trump supporters. Many of them are furious at their opponents, steadfast in their support of him, and of course they are. Why wouldn't they be? He is the only person defending their religion, their beliefs, their country, against the destructive forces of liberalism and secularism and communism and socialism. I totally get it. If I believed what Trump supporters believe I would support him too.

I think I can see their reasoning and honestly, it is perfectly sound...

Griffon, I love the way your mind works! That is the best, most rational explanation of why people support Trump that I've ever read!

Thank you for posting this.

[River]

The Democratic leadership in the House had almost no choice after the White House attempted to neutralize the whistleblower's delayed report by releasing that memorandum of a call (the document everyone's calling a transcript even though it says right on the document itself it's not a transcript). The White House did this thinking it would exculpate them. I've read the memo and I'm not sure how or why they could come to that conclusion unless the people in charge over there truly don't understand the first thing about ethical behavior. The results of the gambit are unfolding. Trump's made statements claiming that the document he released is a fake, which is probably about as close as he'll ever get to admitting that releasing the thing was actually a really bad idea and would certainly muddy up the waters for those who haven't been paying even marginal attention to current events. Meanwhile, Warren's been gaining on Biden in the primary for reasons completely independent of the shenanigans grabbing the headlines and everyone likely to campaign or vote for her is becoming aware of the lengths the current POTUS will go to find dirt.

I have no idea how any of this will play out for independents at the national level. I know that the independents of Colorado expressed their opinion of Trump's GOP last fall and I'm not under the impression they've changed their minds much.

[Cerin]

yov, yes, that is what I meant (but of course, it's just conjecture on my part; I don't really know what would happen if you went up to a Trump supporter with your spiel. Maybe you should try it and tell us the result).