Jump to content

ROMAD1

POTUS Impeachment Watch

Recommended Posts

The damnable thing is that Joe Digenova prosecuted the Walker Family spy ring.  Just as Rudy Giuliani was a hero of 9/11. 

Its like a Chris Nolan superhero movie or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ROMAD1 said:

The damnable thing is that Joe Digenova prosecuted the Walker Family spy ring.  Just as Rudy Giuliani was a hero of 9/11. 

Its like a Chris Nolan superhero movie or something.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Entertainment culture predisposition. There is a mismatch between television people and the lawyers that actually run the process. In entertainment land you need a great a 1st reel to keep people watching - so the assumption you lead off with your strongest witness. In a prosecution the case is usually build up so that you have established a context for the main event. You also want to put high credibility guys first so when the bad guys testify it's more clear they are contradicting good guys. 

Right. Some of it is spin by the Trump folks to suppress viewership of the following hearings, but a lot of it is that the media has some blind spots in how a process like this works.

I'm not sure if there is a star witness or not... but Taylor/Kent, while important, were never the only two people that this case rested on. That's just revisionist history 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ROMAD1 said:

Fiona Hill is the US Government's foremost expert on Putin.   This case is about Trump's conspiracy with the Russian leader to pin the 2016 hacking on Ukraine's former government and attempt to get a bribe from the current Ukraine government.

But there is a paradox in the story of Russian election interference. The people that voted against Trump were not influenced, a majority that voted for him still support him and so still view their pro-trump judgment as their own. There is only a small slice of people who have changed their minds  and have done so because they feel betrayed by the Russian influence campaign. That number could be significant enough to prevent Trump's re-election, but  it's too small to put Russia at the top of that many voter's concerns.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gehringer_2 said:

But there is a paradox in the story of Russian election interference. The people that voted against Trump were not influenced, a majority that voted for him still support him and so still view their pro-trump judgment as their own. There is only a small slice of people who have changed their minds and and have done so because they feel betrayed by the Russian influence campaign. That number could be significant enough to prevent Trump's re-election, but  it's too small to put Russia at the top of that many voter's concerns.

Its only meant to highlight Fiona's value as a witness to Putin's role in this.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ROMAD1 said:

Its only meant to highlight Fiona's value as a witness to Putin's role in this.

Still, the Russian efforts should be a bigger issue to Americans than they apparently are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Gehringer_2 said:

Entertainment culture predisposition. There is a mismatch between television people and the lawyers that actually run the process. In entertainment land you need a great a 1st reel to keep people watching - so the assumption you lead off with your strongest witness. In a prosecution the case is usually build up so that you have established a context for the main event. You also want to put high credibility guys first so when the bad guys testify it's more clear they are contradicting good guys. 

That said, this isn't just a process for Congress, they need to 'entertain' a bit as well to sell it to the American people.  We can all hope some republicans get a moral backbone, if the public at large doesn't buy in, it'll be that much tougher in the Senate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One question I'd have for some folks who may have been around during Watergate was how much 'entertainment' happened during those hearings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonsense. If the Dems stick to facts it is boring. If they make it interesting they are sensationalizing an important process with cheap theatrics. If they have closed door hearings they are hiding something. If public they are just sham trials. There is no good faith behind behind any of these arguments. And Dems should spend zero time trying to appeal to politicians or citizens who cannot or really will not see the truth. 

9 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

That said, this isn't just a process for Congress, they need to 'entertain' a bit as well to sell it to the American people.  We can all hope some republicans get a moral backbone, if the public at large doesn't buy in, it'll be that much tougher in the Senate.

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good trend

Changed from last week when the narrative was that the Majority of Americans support impeachment but not in those key swing states.  Now, the swing states support it. 

Tell me what will change this trendline

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

Nonsense. If the Dems stick to facts it is boring. If they make it interesting they are sensationalizing an important process with cheap theatrics. If they have closed door hearings they are hiding something. If public they are just sham trials. There is no good faith behind behind any of these arguments.

Largely correct. Moreover, if there were more "entertainment" or more "sensation" to the hearing yesterday, the hearing would have likely been written off as a "circus." I believe this because this has happened in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

Largely correct. Moreover, if there were more "entertainment" or more "sensation" to the hearing yesterday, the hearing would have likely been written off as a "circus." I believe this because this has happened in the past.

Correct.  The hearings will be spun by the Rs regardless of level of drama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Euphdude said:

Correct.  The hearings will be spun by the Rs regardless of level of drama.

Moreover, to the extent that the hearings will be spun regardless, I think having a more sober, fact-based hearing that is spun to be boring is much more preferable than having a sensational hearing that will be spun as a "circus" that shows how dysfunctional "both sides" are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More to the point for me is there is no actual defense of Trump going on.

It is either second-hand / third-had knowledge critique (ignoring the fact that many of those with first hand knowledge refuse to testify), questioning partisanship of whistleblower, or the process is too boring (replacing the dragging on too long criticism).

Pretty telling to me, take as you will.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently the best defense was Jim Jordan tossing some word salad, and feigning ignorance in order to pretend it's confusing, and also insulting everyone's intelligence in the process.

I definitely agree w/ Biggs, the only thing I'd add to his post is that they're also ignoring the fact that many with first hand knowledge are also scheduled to testify and just haven't yet (such as Vindman).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Mr. Bigglesworth said:

More to the point for me is there is no actual defense of Trump going on.

It is either second-hand / third-had knowledge critique (ignoring the fact that many of those with first hand knowledge refuse to testify), questioning partisanship of whistleblower, or the process is too boring (replacing the dragging on too long criticism).

Pretty telling to me, take as you will.

If facts don't fit your narrative or support your tribal leader, deny the facts and troll the process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a little surprised Trump is not going on a whole rally tour trying to convince his people that real patriots won't even watch or follow the boring hearings. Maybe at tonight's rally in deep red Louisiana his operatives will start up a chant something like "just don't watch it."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Paul Ryan!

Kent a) drank water b) from some left wing hippie reusable container while c) wearing a bow-tie like Les Nessman.

People actually get paid huge $ to put this sh|t on the tv

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's been much discussed that increased business from foreign officials is not the only graft Trump Hotels receives. They also get increased business from American corporate executives and lobbyists seeking to curry favor with Trump. It may not be a technical violation of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution, but make no mistake: these are emoluments as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,733
    • Total Posts
      2,934,438
  • Who's Online (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...