The Best People: White House Emailed Talking Points Meant For Surrogates To Dems, Tried To Recall Email Afterwards
from the heads-up-everyone dept
At the time of this writing, I'll go ahead and assume that anyone reading this is now fully immersed in Ukraine-Call-Gate or whatever we're calling this potentially impeachment-inducing scandal Donald Trump has managed to build for himself. What started as a murky story surrounding the administration flatly ignoring the law in handling a mysterious whistle-blower complaint has since been clarified in the extreme. What happened essentially is that the whistle-blower raised alarms over several occurrences, one of which was a call that occurred between Trump and the recently elected Ukrainian President in which Trump reportedly pushed his counterpart to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of his potential 2020 rival. Then, for reasons that are beyond me, Trump released an unredacted "rough" transcript of the call, which demonstrates that he did that very thing. You're going to hear a great deal of obfuscation over the next days and weeks about what the transcript shows. Go read it for yourself. Trump asked Ukraine, while withholding aid money at the time, to investigate the Bidens.
In the wake of the outrage over the transcript, the White House obviously went into damage control. That's to be expected. As part of any scandal, talking points are developed for surrogates to use when talking on any of the insanely stupid 24 hour news channels. That's also to be expected. But once those talking points are in written format, it's not customary to send them out to the opposing party's Congressional members.
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.
Here's the goods, should you want to see them for yourself.
Hmmm… The White House just sent its talking points on Ukraine to House Democrats.
Here are some screenshots, per source. pic.twitter.com/VvNAaqKP3D
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) September 25, 2019
Now, look, I've made this mistake in my own professional life. That said, I'm not one of the "very best people" working for a White House embroiled in a full on scandal of its own making, so there's that. When you're trying to sow confusion and intrigue around what appears for all the world to be a really simple example of abuse of Presidential power, you really have to be careful about who is in that "To:" field.
And, even when I have made this mistake, I was smart enough not to frantically send out one of those useless "recall email" requests to those very same rivals I had accidentally emailed.
Source says the White House just sent a follow-up to “recall” the email to House Democrats containing talking points...
— Andrew Desiderio (@AndrewDesiderio) September 25, 2019
Now, I know some of you are thinking that this really isn't a laughing matter. And you're right, but you're also wrong, because this is fucking hilarious. One is forced to imagine Stephen Miller himself furiously sending out recall requests to Nancy Pelosi having just realized what he's done.
Will this inadvertent transparency matter? Probably not. If you're the sort that spends any calories watching cable news, this will all probably fly right over your head. Meanwhile, partisanship has so infested Washington that one of the truest things Donald Trump has ever said is probably that he could shoot someone on 5th Avenue without consequence. So at least we can have a laugh at the very best people's use of email, instead.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: donald trump, hunter biden, impeachment, nancy pelosi, recall, talking points, transcript, ukraine, white house
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I wish I could laugh at the ineptitude of the Trump administration. Then I remember that several kids have died in American concentration camps. I don’t feel like laughing much after that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can we get a button to rate a post as "sad but true?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Most people seem to use 'Insightful' as a stand-in for that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seriously? "American concentration camps"? Please cite your sources that show that the United States set up these detention centers for the express purpose of exterminating brown people. If you can't, then at least admit that you have drunk AOC's kool-aide and have decided to outsource your critical thinking to her on this topic from now on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Seriously? "American concentration camps"? Please cite your sources that show that the United States set up these detention centers for the express purpose of exterminating brown people.
You have moved those goalposts so far away I can't even see them any more.
That's not what concentration camps mean. You know what Stephen means. Don't be an idiot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're just proving my point. AOC started calling them concentration camps, then it spread. If you really think there is any comparison between the detention centers at the border and what the nazi's set up, you really haven't though the situation through. You are welcome to your opinions, but not your own facts. Again, please cite your sources. Please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/the-unimaginable-reality-of-american-concentration-cam ps
https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a27813648/concentration-camps-southern-border-migrant-deten tion-facilities-trump/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/gdpr-consent/?destination=%2fnation%2f2019%2f0 6%2f20%2fconcentration-camps-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-japanese-americans%2f%3f
https://www.gq.com/st ory/george-takei-american-concentration-camps
https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2019-07-29/ameri ca-has-concentration-camps-on-its-border-thats-absurd-and-ahistorical
https://www.theatlantic.com/id eas/archive/2019/07/border-facilities/593239/
How many more do you need? Concentration camps are primarily holding facitilies that detain people for no good reason other than that they're considered unwanted aliens. There have been deaths in these American places due to the neglect of the people housed there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Definition of a concentration camp:
"The term concentration camp refers to a camp in which people are detained or confined, usually under harsh conditions and without regard to legal norms of arrest and imprisonment that are acceptable in a constitutional democracy."
In other words the caged children of immigrants in the US recently fit the bill admirably. Child abuse on a massive scale which has resulted in deaths.
The japanese internment camps, the old soviet labor camps in siberia, Auschwitz and any other place used to concentrate people who have been detained outside of the legal process fall under the same definition. In some of these the main purpose was detention - same as with the children in the US - and some held the intent of extermination.
All of them are concentration camps.
Gitmo, abu ghraib and other extraterritorial structures fulfilling many similar criteria fall under the heading of "prison" instead - albeit one run under inhumane local legislation where the inmates have been held under SOME sort of law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"this is fucking hilarious"
Yes, I laughed for a few and then thought, W - T - F
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wednesday - Thursday - Friday ...
WhyTheFace?
:)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Win The Flection
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My brother Jack had a good idea. He read your post about "several kids have died in American concentration camps", and he thought hey, wow, that gives me an IDEA!
Since the Trump administration is going to be blamed for "concentration camps" until hell freezes over anyway, why not go ahead and run the facilities like concentration camps? Put in some ovens, gas everyone that comes across the border, then burn them and scatter their ashes in the Rio Grande.
Do you have any how much money that would save? It would be impossible for them to re-offend, we don't have to give them food, shelter or medical care, and we would be promoting the growth of Green New Plants along the RIo Grande! Win win, right? Less tax payer money, no re-offenders, and (as an extra bonus) good for the Environment! Green! Soylent Green! Then we could feed the hungry Democrats with the plant growth, that would be fitting.
And if AOC or her friends come to inspect the facilities and complain about the drinking water or the toilets, Gas and Burn them too! Great, right? Get some new blood in Congress, save money and save the environment by incinerating dissenters! Efficient, eco-friend and very low cost.
My brother Jack, he's another stable genius. Can't compare him to Donald Trump the Magnificent, of course, but a genius none the less. If you're going to take the blame anyway, why not make the best of it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There are some fun contradictions in those talking points. My favorite is that a second hand account (I'd assume they have just informed the public that the whistle blower read a transcript) of a phone call can't possibly provide sufficient information, after releasing a "non-verbatim" transcript of that phone call as proof that nothing untoward happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After Trump said, in the same breath, that the whistleblower is partisan and he doesn't know who the whistleblower is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look bad.'
That one's actually easy to explain, and depending on how warped your mind is it can be consistent. One need only put anyone who makes you look bad/says something you don't agree with in the 'partisan against me' camp and not knowing who someone is and saying they are partisan match up perfectly fine(by that standard).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look bad.'
Right, that's the nut of it: Trump believes it's Republicans' jobs to defend him no matter what he does, and Democrats' job to attack him no matter what he does. He has no principles, he surrounds himself with people who have no principles, and he doesn't seem to believe that anyone truly has any principles; he doesn't see the world in terms of what's right or wrong, he sees it in terms of who kisses his ass and who's out to get him.
He doesn't value facts, truths, or principles; he only values what he calls "loyalty" but is, in fact, sycophancy. (Real loyalty is a two-way street; Trump is loyal to no one.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look bad.'
Trump believes it's Republicans' jobs to defend him no matter what he does,
To be fair they seem to think it's their job too, so it's not hard to see why he'd believe that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look bad
"To be fair they seem to think it's their job too, so it's not hard to see why he'd believe that."
Can't blame the republicans, really. Ever since they invited the populist demagogues along with Sarah Palin they've been scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates.
As long as trump is president the republicans will go to ANY lengths to defend him. No matter what he does. Mind you, in that regard the republicans closely mimic the democrats in the Clinton era.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
Can't blame the republicans, really. Ever since they invited the populist demagogues along with Sarah Palin they've been scraping the bottom of the barrel for candidates.
You really, really can. The fact that they've only got garbage candidates is on them, but even more so is their act of unconditional support for those candidates.
Just because one of theirs does something does not mean they have to support them, they could absolutely object by pointing out that the party they support is not in favor of [insert objectionable action/speech here]. If enough of them had the integrity to do that then the candidate in question(Trump or otherwise) would either shape up and get back in line, or quickly find themselves opposed by both parties and much more restricted because of it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
"You really, really can. The fact that they've only got garbage candidates is on them, but even more so is their act of unconditional support for those candidates. "
If i find the swimming pool full of bobbit worms and piranhás I don't blame the fish and invertebrates in question for biting. I blame the asshat who put them in the swimming pool.
In the end the current GOP is the way it is because the US citizenry rewarded their malfeasance with seating in the house and senate.
"Just because one of theirs does something does not mean they have to support them, they could absolutely object by pointing out that the party they support is not in favor of [insert objectionable action/speech here]."
Every now and then a token republican does exactly that. But they know full well that the token protest is quite enough to pacify the sheep whereas a well-deserved stance of outrage will only serve to drive the voters away.
This is almost like a dr Phil session where the parents bring their misbehaving spawn into the studio only for the (admittedly douchebaggy) doctor to spend the entire show whaling on them for consistently rewarding his bad behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
This is almost like a dr Phil session where the parents bring their misbehaving spawn into the studio only for the (admittedly douchebaggy) doctor to spend the entire show whaling on them for consistently rewarding his bad behavior.
To be fair, failing to impose consequences on the misbehaving spawn is //exactly// why the misbehaviour continues. Consider the case of a youth who lived with his parents and spent most of his time smoking dope in his bedroom. The parents went to a shrink to ask for help. The advice? "Tell him to pack up and leave. Help him pack to show him you're serious."
The lad quit the dope and got a job.
The moral of the story is that pandering is counter-productive. Voters gonna vote, and they'll vote for the candidate they like. A candidate aiming at the sensible vote ought to behave sensibly. Taking a mindless populist stance assumes that all voters are thick. Not true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sounds like a self-inflicted problem to me
"A candidate aiming at the sensible vote ought to behave sensibly. Taking a mindless populist stance assumes that all voters are thick. Not true."
That assumes an educated populace which gives significantly more than zero fucks about the guy who gets to camp the oval office.
Sadly, however, in the US less than 50% actually bother to vote. Out of those who do 80% will always, invariably, vote for their grandpappy's choice of party. Hence why almost every presidential campaign in the US is completely focused around capturing the swing votes in order to get that balance breaker in the electoral college.
That in the US it's often damn hard to obtain the voter registration, easy to get oneself permanently disenfranchised, and that the voting takes place at a time ensuring that people will have to take personal time off from work in order to cast their ballot...only compounds the problem.
In places like sweden, where enough people are engaged in the public political debate to bring the voter proportion to 80-90%, and it's actually law for employers to provide time off for going to the ballot box, the situation is different.
US populism in recent times ensured the win of two presidents for the GOP - GWB and Trump - both elected mainly due to catering to mindless emotion. That sent a message - that you don't need to cater to substance, rationality, or reason when it came to mobilizing a sufficient number of the ignorant, the irate, and the outliers who never voted before, to gain that competitive edge needed to win the election.
When bad behavior is rewarded the result is more bad behavior. This is as true for political parties as it is for delinquent teenagers.
Not all voters are thick, true. But in the US, today, the idiots at the ballots are sufficient in number to ensure the mindless populist can win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look bad.'
And, of course, Trump's is the Most Transparent Administration Evah in the History of the U S of A! Just ask him! (But... don't ask him for his tax returns, Mueller's unredacted report, or quite a lot of other things he's sure we don't need to know about...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look bad
I think that claim was from the Obama administration. It was a bad joke then. I don't think Trump even bothered pretending, so it seems unfair to pin that ridiculous claim on him. Particularly since his pet objective is undoing anything Obama achieved or claimed to achieve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: 'Clearly only a partisan hack would make me look
Except he made exactly that ridiculous claim.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4H9kHLsX_aQ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Many 5 year olds, when caught red handed, will lash out without rhyme nor reason. Amazingly, his zealot followers won't notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sow not sew.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Some people can do both. Call it a green thimble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Hey, your boss said it was okay...'
As an added bit of humor the democrats who received the email and the frantic attempt to get it back already have all the justification they need to keep it, from no less than Trump himself.
After all he was willing to say on national television that getting help/dirt on an opponent from a foreign source is perfectly fine by him, and if that's acceptable then clearly getting embarrassing information from your political opponents and using it against them is absolutely fine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'Hey, your boss said it was okay...'
More on point, if these talking points are about getting out the truth, why is there any issue with democrats having them? Its not like they have any obvious contradictions or lies in them, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Accident?
I wonder if the email going to the Dems was really an accident or intentional.
"Ooops, gosh, so sorry Mr. Trump. My bad."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accident?
"Don' t worry Mr. Trump -- I'll fix it by sending a recall request!"
You've got a point there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accident?
That or the fact that everyone is now reading their talking points.... It's actually an effective way to get them heard. Maybe I'm too cynical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accident?
You'll never know, but since Trump has burnt through any White House personnel capable of pointing out his blunders, the accident theory certainly does not look implausible.
He's like a Diana Moon Glampers for the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Accident?
And imagine how chaotic the white house is now, even by Trump standards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Accident?
Holy shit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Accident?
I was just about to say that.
I think we should be thanking the White House staffer who's probably fed up with all the Trump nonsense and who "accidentally" sent these to the Democrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Epitaph
"Now, I know some of you are thinking that this really isn't a laughing matter. And you're right, but you're also wrong, because this is fucking hilarious."
This may become the short definition of "Trump Administration" in future history books. I hope we survive to laugh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dumb clancy
This has to be a joke...
No really I think he’s innocent and he was joking. This guys so dumb the tom clancy like feats of conspiracy he is accused of are either accidents or he walks into traps without realizing what a trap is lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dumb clancy
Indeed, that email-recall feature is hilarious... but not allowed by current Microsoft policy, suggesting upper management isn't aware it's a joke.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have you read the whistle-blower complaint, Tim? Until the complaint is released, everything is irrelevant speculation.
All we have is a partial transcript of a single phone call released by the White House.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
By all means keep digging, this is gold
I swear, it's like watching a child cover their eyes to pretend that something doesn't exist because 'I can't see it!', with the best part being the person you are so desperate to 'defend' has already moved past the 'nothing happened' stage and is now in damage control to try to spin what did happen as no big deal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"All we have is a partial transcript of a single phone call released by the White House."
Mmm, no, we also have Herr Trump's own admissions....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hell, he even asked the president of Ukraine to investigate Biden on camera today.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: OMG, just look at the fun Democrats are having:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/25/exclusive-kevin-mccarthy-on-impeachm ent-democrats-have-lost-their-minds-move-will-backfire-on-them-in-2020/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OMG, just look at the fun Democrats are having:
Oh, and the Democrat talking points? They don't have any! They jumped on this with NO plan!
Dems in Disarray After Pelosi
Impeachment' Announcement:Give Us a G-ddamn Message'https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/25/dems-in-disarray-after-pelosi-impeachment-ann ouncement-give-us-a-g-ddamn-message/
As usual, Techdirt has assertions that I just don't see in my Antiwar.com to Smirking Chimp to Drudge to Breitbart propaganda bubble. It's why I read here, escape into fantasy!
Hey, "Dark Helmet": given the rate this is collapsing, bet ya half a peach that by next Wednesday, ya never want to mention this STORY again! (But it'll be more hoots if still do!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your tears are delicious. Please don't stop.
How's the Lincoln Bandlow defense fund coming along, bro?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know right? I keep a little jar of Rachael Maddow's tears from election night on my desk... I've started quite the collection from both sides...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG, just look at the fun Democrats are having:
Do you happen to have any facts to back any of that up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: OMG, just look at the fun Democrats are having:
I think you need to post comments on how not to comment using Breitbart
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda like someone using the word 'sheeple' really
Nonsense, it's a huge time saver, let's people know upfront that they don't need to take anything the person using that as a source seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Kinda like someone using the word 'sheeple' really
Good point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: OMG, just look at the fun I am are having:
Ah you’re not just dumb enough to read breitbart but you’re so fucking stupid that that you expect us to believe that trash. Gotcha bro.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That’s nice Ivan. I hope your taskmasters aren’t making you work too much overtime trying to spin this fiasco.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wow, dude, you fell for Trump's "refuse to release the transcript, and then complain that people are speculating about the transcript without reading it" rhetorical tactic? Not really something I'd be proud of if I were you.
Yes.
A partial transcript.
After the president said he would release a full, unredacted transcript.
And the partial transcript he released still implicates him, his AG, and his personal lawyer in pressuring a foreign head of state to investigate a political rival.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Well yeah, the partial transcript implicates him. It's like "give the Democrats 5 yards of the 100 we have lying here and let them try hanging Trump on it. They haven't realized yet that his neck has a circumference of 10 yards."
The amount of shit required to put out the Republican dumpster fire that is Trump is more than what they handed to the public. It still will make the Democrats focus on making that piece of rope do the job rather than looking for more. They'll fail. Trump is not Nixon, he will not resign, and the Democrats won't get the public and the Republicans to go all the way to forcing him out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'I've scratched your back, now it's time you return the favor'
Nonsense, what could possibly be seen as 'pressuring' in 'reminding' a foreign government how generous you've been in monetary aid and asking for a 'favor'(eight times as I understand it) in the same call? /s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 'I've scratched your back, now it's time you return the favo
Ok genius, tell me this: What do you think of this lyric: "Happiness is a warm gun, yes it is". Offensive and criminally insane, right?
Do you even hear yourself? Leftists used to support freedom of expression. Go listen to the Beatles White Album and tell me again what's offensive from your ivory tower, you British Wacko Dacko (are you Wendy?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Shiva Ayyadurai didn't invent email, Hamilton.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Used to work for a state agency. We ran a Microsoft Exchange email setup. Saw more then one "Oh Crap" face when I explained that email recall only worked in the building and that once the email had left the building, recall didn't work. Even in the building, messages that were already read often didn't recall. Lawyers had the most entertaining "Oh Crap" faces.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Slapstick imitation done badly
Who is channeling Laurel and who is channeling Hardy? Or is it Dean and Jerry. Or maybe all three Stooges are at play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OMG I love you guys. You are proving that Trump is even more of a stable genius than advertised. He's been baiting ALL of you and you ALL took it! Wow!
Count the money that went in the hands of the Biden family. How much again? A few million from Ukraine, over a BILLION from China? Does that sound about right?
You still don't get it, do you? BAIT! It's bait for the Democrats to SCREW THEMSELVES! Impeach the president, but let the family of the former Vice President TAKE MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF ACTUAL DOLLARS! Do you think rural Americans working hard for a living are going to put up with having their vote nullified and have the country cast into the GREEN NEW DEAL? Really? Actually? HILARIOUS! HILLARYARIOUS! Didn't work before, wont work this time either. PATHETIC!
Who but a left-wing nutcase would take this seriously?
Trump 2020! Yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Question for the Legally Informed:
If Biden was not running for office, would Trump's request STILL be criminal?
If Trump was not running for office, would Trump's request STILL be criminal?
Is it criminal to ask about ANYONE doing ANYTHING if your name is Trump?
Did the Democratic Senators pressure Ukraine to investigate Trump? Are they CRIMINALS?
Does anyone think that Biden's son was paid for ACTUAL WORK that was VALUABLE and he EARNED HIS MONEY LEGITIMATELY?
How can anyone see paying the coke-head son of a sleepy politician $50k a month to do NOTHING is anything other than a BRIBE?
Why would China let Biden's coke-head son manage a BILLION (and a half) DOLLARS?
Could it be CORRUPTION? Oh, no, no that.
How much money has to change hands before people ask questions? The Clintons took HOW MUCH (hundreds of millions)? The Bidens took HOW MUCH (billions)? Count much?
I read a story recently that Obama has a secret thatched hut in Thailand that is FULL OF CASH! Is that true?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Hi, Hamilton. Drinking Shiva Ayyadurai anti-vaccine Kool-Aid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question for the Legally Informed:
Here, let me show you an example of a quid pro quo.
Zelensky: "we are almost ready to buy more Javelins (missiles) from the United States."
Trump: ""I would like for you to do us a favor"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Question for the Legally Informed:
In no dictionary ever has "quid pro quo" been a synonym for "extortion."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Question for the Legally Informed:
But it works as both.
"We need Javelins" Quid
"Do us a favor" pro quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump isn’t going to let you physically kiss his ass, Shiva.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
For those of you (like you, Stephen) who despair at the obvious conclusion of this impeachment hysteria, consider this as respite: soon it will all be over.
Soon, we will have a new election. Soon, Trump will be re-elected (as you all foresee, your only hope is impeachment) and the American People will have spoken, again, clearly and decisively. And soon, the Democrats will turn on a dime, away from Trump (who will be term limited) and on to their next great idea and enemy.
So don't despair, ye of little faith. The time is almost upon us when Democrats will finally get over their obsession with Trump. A new day will dawn and new obsession will be available to sooth your timid little souls.
Soon. Trump 2020. Yay!
How about a Junior Trump or a wife of Junior Trump next? That would be good, right? And you could FOCUS all the HATRED that you NEED on someone NEW! Exciting, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like last time, when a majority of voters voted for someone else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Question for the Legally Informed:
Maybe, but not necessarily
Not as likely, but possible
No, but at least one Trump seems incapable of doing so recently. That said, I believe Ivanka Trump has made phone calls without implicating anyone in anything criminal, illegal, or questionable. She’s no angel, but she’s more competent than that.
No, they did not, and no, they are not.
Who paid him what? I thought the conspiracy theory (which is false, BTW) was that Biden pressured the Ukrainian government to remove a prosecutor who (according to the theory) was investigating Biden’s son for something. I don’t recall Biden’s son receiving money from anyone in all this.
A bribe for what? Even under the conspiracy theory’s own terms, there is no reason that Biden’s son would need to be paid at all. He already benefits from the whole affair and from keeping quiet about it. Why would he be getting bribed at all?
No. No corruption, because the events you described didn’t happen. Specifically, Biden’s son was not under investigation by anyone at the time, and everyone in the Western world was asking Ukraine to fire that prosecutor for not investigating corruption. Biden had nothing personal to gain from Ukraine firing that prosecutor, and he was told by others in the administration to pressure Ukraine to do so. Ergo, no corruption or conspiracy (at least from Biden).
In this instance, Biden had a problem with Ukraine not investigating corruption, so even if Biden is corrupt, this instance doesn’t even suggest that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good to see some discipline being enforced in the Techdirt ranks. We wouldn't want anyone falling out of line and actually responding to "troll" posts (posts you disagree with and are embarrassed by). Are you guys all Democrats? Democrats show remarkable discipline, time and time again.
Discipline while acting upon absolutely stupid propositions, of course. Staying the course trying to abolish the electoral college. Staying the course while the Russia hoax falls apart. Staying the course accusing Brent Kavanaugh (an actual alter boy) of sexual misconduct. Staying the course while the Ukraine scandal backfires and implicates the whole previous administration in bribery and corruption to the tune of billions of dollars.
Staying the course until all you assholes are seen for what you actually are.
I love it. Stay the course. Trump 2020, that's the course that you are all on. Yay!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Right, Left, both are dirty as hell. I love the "Herr Trump" comment up above by Helmet. The subtle yet obvious racism clam that gets whipped out in almost every case when Trump is involved. I think both sides can agree Trump is an idiot, maybe a well meaning idiot, but still an idiot, but these constant "gates" and attacks on him are obfuscating any REAL misconduct when it actually does happen. At this point I think a good portion of people are meh on this. IMO All this crap is doing is further fracturing our country.
Maybe he did break the law, maybe he will get "impeached"... I care about as much for this as Clinton getting a blowjob... So Clinton lied... President or not; most men would have done the same thing in his shoes.
What is this; The forth try at impeachment? Shit even a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually... As a slightly Left Centrist; My only hope is that when a Dem gets in the White house, that they get the constant barrage of investigations that Trump did from the Right. Turn about is fair play. This whole thing is... meh, including the talking points of the Dem's. So they want to attack the Right? Big surprise to whom? I would be more surprised if they didn't. The only funny part is that they fucked up the email... even that.... who hasn't done that at least once?
This whole thing stinks, from both sides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I wholeheartedly agree. Except for the objectives of those who are at war. I sincerely believe Trump's objective (as clumsy as he is) is the furtherance of values I agree with - less regulation, more people working, more serious production of money and savings for the future, more real investment in society, rather than the other side's objective - more government, less liberty, "free" money that you cannot bankrupt yourself out of, the undue enrichment of Universities at the expense of Children, the end of the fossil fuel industry (and cow flatulence), etc.
Both sides are nasty though, I would certainly agree with that. It's just that one side has an outcome that I actually like. Work. Compete. Win. Yay! Trump 2020
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You mean ever, in US history? Sort of. Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached. Nixon would have been but he resigned first. And now there is this inquiry, but no articles of impeachment yet. If you mean of Trump, there have been zero attempts by the House to impeach him.
Regardless of whether that Democrat does anything wrong? Or are you hoping the next president is awful?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'm curious about the "a blind squirrel finds a nut eventually". Are they saying that the Dems finally caught Trump actually doing something illegal? So are they agreeing he broke the law?
If they are arguing it isn't illegal then wouldn't it be more accurate to say the blind squirrel still hasn't found a nut? Actually no. That implies Trump has done things wrong that just hasn't been found yet. They probably should have just left that sentence out all together.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Let's get something straight. I'm sure EVERY President has broken the law, Trump included. Even still, I've watched the pitchfork and torch parade since the election and to be honest, it's getting old. It's like the left are waiting in the bushes, gnashing their teeth, just waiting for him to do something stupid... and we all know it's going to happen. I'm starting to wonder if this is actually starting to help him by pointing out the obvious obsession the Left has at trying to find a way to burn him at the stake...Very much like the pitchfork parade that went after Clinton, and most people loved him. To be honest, he was a very likable guy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Talks of impeaching Trump started before he was even sworn in by "various" groups. Then you have your "formal" efforts in 2017 by Al Green and Brad Sherman. So yeah, I don't think I was to far off base.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_impeach_Donald_Trump
"Regardless of whether that Democrat does anything wrong?"
Are you fucking serious? EVERY President that has ever held office has done something impeachable, and every future President will. The question is, do they get caught? The Left knows this, and have hounded that dumb ass since he was elected. I was simply pointing out, in a round about way, that the Left facing media will NEVER stop trying.... and I hope, that if they want to be the "watch dog's of democracy" that they give as much effort to doing the same when the Left is in power. Is that so bad of a thing to hope for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
My only hope is that when a Dem gets in the White house, that they get the constant barrage of investigations that Trump did from the Right.
So the Benghazi debacle wasn't enough? They OWNED both Houses and still couldn't impeach Hillary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
She's never going to be the President. I think that was enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm down with that; I can't abide neocons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm down with that; I can't abide neocons."
Oh, if only she had in fact been an eisenhower republican, like both she and bill often said.
When she tried discussing feminism; her material and speeches must have been written by what some middle-aged chauvinist fart IMAGINED feminists would be saying. She actually managed to scare many women from voting for her when TRUMP was the alternative choice.
And people forget - the monster that is shadow banking may have grown up under GWB and thrived under Obama, but the foundation for that bubble generator was laid by the mutual efforts of Bill and Hillary.
Eisenhower was about compromises. Something not normally found in todays US of A.
That said you can't really call Hillary a neocon either. She will at any given moment just be whatever flavor of politician stands the greatest chance of winning the swing votes and trim the edges of her oppositions electorate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You guys sure went from "We'll jail Hilary and make Mexico pay for the wall" to "Eh, she won't be president and we got our army to pay for the wall, that's probably good enough" pretty damn quick.
It's been three fucking years, you incompetent pansies. You've got a majority of seats in the White House, how do you goof such a silver spoon giveaway this badly?
Stable genius, my fat ass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And the carnival sideshow continues...
Please don’t read this...
It will be incoherent and has lots of words, it has no redeeming qualities and you may become dumber by reading it...
But...
I find it hilarious, though not “Haa-ha-ha” hilarious, more like “bad hallucinations caused by food poisoning and now I’m delirious” hilarious, that this administration is so fucking comically inept...
I’m thankful they are, but totally amazed they all haven’t managed to drown in the shower or blissfully snuff it trying to fly like Superman...
If twenty years ago someone had told me they traveled to the future and saw this, right after asking them for any significant winning lottery numbers, I’d have told them their story was complete bullshit, because nobody could climb that far up the ladder and be that absolutely incompetent and willfully stupid.
Especially the part about trump, who has spent his entire life proving what a moron he is...
Ronald fucking Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s and on his worst day he was Steven Hawking compared to trump.
I just wouldn’t have bought it...
Yet here we are... and every day all previous levels of ignorance and scumbaggery are outdone.
We have exceeded Mystery Science Theatre 3000 villain level stupidity many times over at this point...
Those capering evil aliens bad guys from any of the 60s godzilla movies actually look like fucking geniuses now... all that’s missing is the silver jumpsuits, capes and winged helmets...
I get that most people are pretty stupid, but holy fucking hell, I just can’t square it that 30% of the people actually support this imbecile...
I get that 30% may want a greedy misogynistic narcissistic racist hero... but for fuck’s sake, isn’t there a point where one says, “Okay, I want to make a deal with the devil, but obviously this guy in the stained lavender dinosaur costume is not him”...
I mean if you are going to sell your soul, at least sell it to the actual devil, not a smelly drunk in a bus station wearing a knockoff Barney costume... at least get the effing venue right and pick someone wearing a frigging devil costume...
I think the thing that bothers me most is the incompetency... that people so bad at everything can be chosen by anyone to do anything... these people couldn’t manage an abandoned 7-11, yet they are trying to run America into the ground...
I’m not for that, it’s just the equivalent of the humiliation of having your greatest nemesis turn out to be a pile of retarded hamsters in fat guy costume... it’s like “what the fuck... it was hamsters... no wonder he couldn’t spell...”
And that’s the problem, because aside from voting these incompetent scumbags out, you never really had an opportunity to fight back against the retarded hamsters... you just had to watch as they ran everything into the ground.
We weren’t even afforded a proper villain... just a failed real estate guy ex-reality show bozo with the vocabulary of a pile of retarded hamsters.
Fuck.
Just fuck.
It’s humiliating on a daily basis.
Hopefully we have reach a turning point... probably not because for too long this shit has been getting out of hand... but hopefully.
Anyway... I told you not to read this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Left, right, center...
" talking points on how to spin the release of a summary"
Iv said to many of my friends to read and Criticize the bible.. think of it as a History, as a life story.. SEE what is happening in it.
But understand that its a history 2000 years old, written in the old languages, that even NOW are hard to interpret. As words change, even in our own lives.
Then wonder about 40 different Christian sects..that all have slightly Different ideals... you CANT stand up and say "WE CHRISTIANS", its not possible. knowing the old testaments are from the Jewish bible, Changed and adapted, the Old Bible stories are Jewish, and then we get 13 New testaments of Christs life, MINUS about 8 other parts(go read About Salomon.)
Interpretation is 1 thing to deal with...LIES ARE NOT.
LIES are from that 2 year old kid that WAKED his sister in the side of the head..because he wanted to see what would happen.
HOW are we considered adults, if we cant deal with truth?? understanding?
Also(look this up) TRUMP is about to enter Lame Duck..and nothing will happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yup, kids: these sheer allegations are ALREADY near collapse!
First, one of your prior heroes is with me:
Impeachment...or CIA Coup?
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/30/impeachment-or-cia-co up/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yup, kids: these sheer allegations are ALREADY near collapse
[Again hit a length limit, so 2nd comment is your falut!]
Second, the NYT is again flopping and flailing trying to find a few facts for accusations:
https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/2019/10/01/nolte-phony-australia-freak-out-proves-ukrain e-hoax-is-running-out-of-steam/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yup, kids: these sheer allegations are ALREADY near coll
[And this 3rd one too! Guess you kids get a thrill each "hiding"!]
It's changed from portraying Trump in alleged possible conspiracy to FACT of Schiff in DEFINITE CONSPIRACY:
Schiff, House Intel Chairman, Got Early Account of Whistle-Blower's Accusations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yup, kids: these sheer allegations are ALREADY near
Schiff knowing some vague outlines of what would later result in a whistleblower complaint doesn’t change anything. It doesn’t suggest a conspiracy like you think it does.
Also, no one here trusts Breitbart as a source, as you well know, Ron Paul isn’t exactly a hero here, and I don’t exactly have full faith in the Ron Paul Institute’s info. Especially as it is headlined “Impeachment or CIA Coup?”, which is a disingenuous question.
Even if the CIA is somehow trying to get Trump ousted, it’s not a coup by the CIA as they aren’t trying to replace him with themselves or someone that wasn’t elected to the position, and nothing you’ve mentioned suggests that this is not following the impeachment procedure that is explicitly authorized by the Constitution.
And if you don’t see the Australia story as indicative that the Ukraine story was not an isolated incident but part of a pattern of behavior coming to light because the Ukraine call invited added scrutiny, I cannot help you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seem to be having real-time blocking, so here's 4th...
So innocuous...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another version...
Now, you may take that as exculpatory, but at same time means that Schiff was lying his head off to Congress.
https://www.enmnews.com/2019/10/02/schiff-house-intel-chairman-got-early-account-of-whistl e-blowers-accusations/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Another version...
How does it suggest he’s lying to Congress, exactly? I’m not seeing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Another version...
He's going to spam this thread like the Nunes memo one, isn't he?
Eh, he can bring it. I'm not going to lose sleep because he's willingly opened up another avenue for people to call him an ignorant motherfucker.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]