Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:15 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573

third Lev Parnas dump exonerates Trump


A now (suspiciously deleted, read the intro) Lev Parnas text/document dump discussed here:
https://www.wonkette.com/parnas-doc-dump-three
has a text message from Rudy Giuliani date stamped 3/12/2019 talking about corruption, which includes:
"I need Porochenko And the AG on the record about the Ambassador and Biden." Biden's campaign did not start until April 25th 2019:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_...ntial_campaign
This shows the intent was to fight corruption, not to weaken a political rival. Game Over.
  #2  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:23 AM
BobLibDem is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Home 07 NCAA HockeyChamps
Posts: 22,060
And Biden's announcement came as a complete shock to the world, nobody could have foreseen it and competing campaigns spent no time whatsoever contemplating how to respond to a potential Biden campaign.
  #3  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:30 AM
Crotalus's Avatar
Crotalus is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio
Posts: 6,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
A now (suspiciously deleted, read the intro) Lev Parnas text/document dump discussed here:
https://www.wonkette.com/parnas-doc-dump-three
has a text message from Rudy Giuliani date stamped 3/12/2019 talking about corruption, which includes:
"I need Porochenko And the AG on the record about the Ambassador and Biden." Biden's campaign did not start until April 25th 2019:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_...ntial_campaign
This shows the intent was to fight corruption, not to weaken a political rival. Game Over.
Read your own cite. The Wikipedia article about Biden's campaign contains numerous references to Biden discussing running beginning as early as December 2016 and continuing until he announced officially.
__________________
Ad hominem is a logical fallacy when it's used to argue against a concept. But it's perfectly appropriate when your point is that someone is an asshole. TonySinclair
The slopes of Mount Everest are littered with the corpses of highly motivated and self-confident people. Gyrate
  #4  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:36 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
Is this a parody, or is this for real? You think that April 25, 2019 is the first time that anyone considered that Biden was running for president in 2020?

Here you go, an article from a month ahead of that about Biden's run. So, by your argument that dates are all that matters, this shows the intent was to weaken a political rival, not corruption.

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 01-17-2020 at 09:38 AM.
  #5  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:39 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crotalus View Post
Read your own cite. The Wikipedia article about Biden's campaign contains numerous references to Biden discussing running beginning as early as December 2016 and continuing until he announced officially.
So in order to prove the intent portion of this state of mind crime, we need to assume Trump even heard things Biden discussed, and believed Biden would finally decide to run after hearing those unofficial discussions.

And what if the Ambasssdor later decided to run for president? She's in the same sentence as Biden. Heck, there's still time for her to announce her candidacy. Then you've got Trump again!

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 01-17-2020 at 09:43 AM.
  #6  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:40 AM
Wolf333 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
So in order to prove the intent portion of this state of mind crime, we need to assume Trump even heard things Biden discussed, and believed Biden would finally decide to run after hearing those unofficial discussions.


The only surprise would have beef if Biden announced that he would not run.
  #7  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:48 AM
Try2B Comprehensive's Avatar
Try2B Comprehensive is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 6,724
Game over, man.

Game. Over.
  #8  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:48 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf333 View Post
The only surprise would have beef if Biden announced that he would not run.
Well my psychic told me that back in January 2019, Biden was thinking "Trump might investigate me, I better start talking about running for President". So now Trump is exonerated again.
  #9  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:49 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
I mean, if only we had some evidence that Trump was aware that Biden was discussing running for president before that. That would be pretty devastating for your hypothesis.

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 01-17-2020 at 09:50 AM.
  #10  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:51 AM
Snarky_Kong is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 8,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Is this a parody, or is this for real? You think that April 25, 2019 is the first time that anyone considered that Biden was running for president in 2020?
If you consider his posting history he's quite consistent in posting the worst takes on the SDMB. Could be he just isn't breaking kayfabe, but almost certainly real.
  #11  
Old 01-17-2020, 09:54 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,868
This is irrelevant. If a President is concerned about illegal actions (such as corruption) by US citizens, then the correct response is to notify US law enforcement authorities. Asking another country, especially one known for corruption, to look into it, is simply not legitimate. It's not credible that Trump asked a corrupt country to investigate a political opponent (and running or not, Biden is a political opponent of Trump) for any legitimate reason. If he was legitimately interested in investigating corruption, he would have referred it to the DOJ and/or other US law enforcement.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 01-17-2020 at 09:56 AM.
  #12  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:00 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
This is irrelevant. If a President is concerned about illegal actions (such as corruption) by US citizens, then the correct response is to notify US law enforcement authorities. Asking another country, especially one known for corruption, to look into it, is simply not legitimate. It's not credible that Trump asked a corrupt country to investigate a political opponent for any legitimate reason. If he was legitimately interested in investigating corruption, he would have referred it to the DOJ and/or other US law enforcement.
I don't think the relevant law even mentions "political opponent". Nor do i think it describes a "legitimate" procedure. And I don't think it lays out a way of classifying a country as corrupt. But go ahead, quote it if it does.
  #13  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:01 AM
Bijou Drains is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 10,743
Biden is running? Since when?
  #14  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:07 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
I don't think the relevant law even mentions "political opponent". Nor do i think it describes a "legitimate" procedure. And I don't think it lays out a way of classifying a country as corrupt. But go ahead, quote it if it does.
Some of us actually served this country, and believe in the ideals it aspires too. Those ideals include more than lip service to the letter of the law -- they require public servants to actually act for the interests of the country and put aside their own personal interests, including their own personal political interests. If you can conceive of a legitimate reason for a US president to ask a country with a history of corrupt law enforcement to investigate a political opponent, rather than referring such a concern to US law enforcement, then please go ahead. Otherwise, I will go by the oath I took when serving the country and stick to the basic notion that public servants should put the interests of the public ahead of their own, and to do otherwise is corrupt.
  #15  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:23 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
Are you going to comment on the fact that your entire premise hinges on the dubious point that Trump was unaware that Biden would be running for president before he announced on April 25, 2019 and that has now been thoroughly debunked?
  #16  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:24 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Some of us actually served this country, and believe in the ideals it aspires too. Those ideals include more than lip service to the letter of the law -- they require public servants to actually act for the interests of the country and put aside their own personal interests, including their own personal political interests. If you can conceive of a legitimate reason for a US president to ask a country with a history of corrupt law enforcement to investigate a political opponent, rather than referring such a concern to US law enforcement, then please go ahead. Otherwise, I will go by the oath I took when serving the country and stick to the basic notion that public servants should put the interests of the public ahead of their own, and to do otherwise is corrupt.
You keep emphasizing "political oponent". The whole point of this thread is that Biden was not officially a political oponent when Giuliani (and therefore we infer Trump) was asking for a statement about Biden. Now why a statement? I guess you would say something like "To give Biden bad press, nothing more. And therefore the only intent could be the corrupt maligining of a political oponent". But the Ambassador is in the same sentence. Why malign her in the press? I can't think of a reason. I can think of an alternative reason to request a statement though. It is because Ukriane is perceived as corrupt (by you too, as you write). If Trump thinks Ukraine is corrupt, and wants to fight corruption (it is part of his job), then a good strategy would be to get them to publicly announce it. Then they have public pressure to actually do it. Without a public announcement they are less likely to follow through.
  #17  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:28 AM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 36,868
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
You keep emphasizing "political oponent". The whole point of this thread is that Biden was not officially a political oponent when Giuliani (and therefore we infer Trump) was asking for a statement about Biden.
There's no such thing as "officially a political opponent". All Democrats are political opponents of Trump (aside from the very rare Democrat who supports Trump). The Democratic party is the opposition party to Trump.

Quote:
Now why a statement? I guess you would say something like "To give Biden bad press, nothing more. And therefore the only intent could be the corrupt maligining of a political oponent". But the Ambassador is in the same sentence. Why malign her in the press? I can't think of a reason. I can think of an alternative reason to request a statement though. It is because Ukriane is perceived as corrupt (by you too, as you write). If Trump thinks Ukraine is corrupt, and wants to fight corruption (it is part of his job), then a good strategy would be to get them to publicly announce it. Then they have public pressure to actually do it. Without a public announcement they are less likely to follow through.
This still doesn't make sense and doesn't explain why Trump thought the proper course of action was to ask a country known for corruption to do it rather than US law enforcement.

The bottom line is this -- the proper route for US officials to refer concerns about corruption by US citizens is US law enforcement agencies, period.
  #18  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:29 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
Also, as we learned from multiple witnesses, Trump didn't actually care about an investigation, only the announcement of an investigation.

Last edited by Fiveyearlurker; 01-17-2020 at 10:33 AM.
  #19  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:36 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Also, as we learned from multiple witnesses, Trump didn't actually care about an investigation, only the announcement of an investigation.
Again you are inferring a state of mind. In my previous post I show why one might ask for an "announcement" without corrupt intent. If they announce it, there is more pressure for them to actually do it. If the words were "make a public vow" to do it, instead of "announce" that would be more clear. On top of that, why would he want them "on the record" about the Ambassador? The President can remove an ambassador at will, so there is no need for a public sentiment campaign in regards to her.

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 01-17-2020 at 10:37 AM.
  #20  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:43 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
Again, you are inferring a state of mind that Trump was unaware that Biden was going to run for president despite contemporaneous evidence that he made quite clear that he was well aware. Because obviously he was aware.
  #21  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:49 AM
Boycott is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 451
Trump was discussing Biden's potential candidacy months before Biden formally joined the race.

13th January 2019: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...rom-scrap-heap

6th February 2019: https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...19-2?r=US&IR=T
  #22  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:59 AM
RitterSport's Avatar
RitterSport is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,758
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
...But the Ambassador is in the same sentence. Why malign her in the press? I can't think of a reason. I can think of an alternative reason to request a statement though. It is because Ukriane is perceived as corrupt (by you too, as you write). If Trump thinks Ukraine is corrupt, and wants to fight corruption (it is part of his job), then a good strategy would be to get them to publicly announce it. Then they have public pressure to actually do it. Without a public announcement they are less likely to follow through.
I also have no idea why Trump would want a foreign country to malign an ambassador serving at his pleasure. I further don't see how maligning an ambassador shows that Ukraine is corrupt. Can you help me out on this point?
  #23  
Old 01-17-2020, 10:59 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
Again, you are inferring a state of mind that Trump was unaware that Biden was going to run for president despite contemporaneous evidence that he made quite clear that he was well aware. Because obviously he was aware.
We can never be certain of anyone else's state of mind about anything. Sometimes we aren't sure of our own. This text, before Biden was officially a candidate, and asking for a statement about both Biden and the Ambassador (and no one even conceiving of her running for President) dramatically casts doubt on the main impeachment claim: Trump's actions were corrupt because his true intent was he wanted Biden smeared in the press for his own political gain. You have to admit that. But if not, and you give a lot of weight to inferences about others' states of mind: Why was the third dump removed (as the article I linked to notes in its intro)? Could it be because they know this text exonerates Trump (as much as anyone can be exonerated regarding a state of mind crime)?
  #24  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:05 AM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
We can be totally certain about his state of mind. There are numerous accounts (cited above) of Trump discussing candidate Biden before April, 2019. You keep ignoring that for some reason. Probably because it completely invalidates your OP.
  #25  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:05 AM
Drum God's Avatar
Drum God is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Central Texas, USA
Posts: 2,272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
Again you are inferring a state of mind. In my previous post I show why one might ask for an "announcement" without corrupt intent. If they announce it, there is more pressure for them to actually do it. If the words were "make a public vow" to do it, instead of "announce" that would be more clear. On top of that, why would he want them "on the record" about the Ambassador? The President can remove an ambassador at will, so there is no need for a public sentiment campaign in regards to her.
Pressure from who? The announcement of the Biden investigation was supposed to be made on CNN. Do you suppose there is a large audience for CNN in Ukraine? Even if there is, why would they care if Biden is or is not corrupt in some way? It's an American problem, not theirs. Why would your average Ukrainian want their limited resources to go toward investigating an American politician? If anything, I would think that the pressure would be for Zelensky et al to quit doing Trump's bidding and pay more attention to domestic issues -- of which there are plenty.

Look, it is obvious to anyone what happened here. That's really not a question. The question before us (really, before the Senate) is will Trump be held accountable for this mess?
__________________
At the feast of ego, everyone leaves hungry.
  #26  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:09 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drum God View Post
Pressure from who? The announcement of the Biden investigation was supposed to be made on CNN. Do you suppose there is a large audience for CNN in Ukraine? Even if there is, why would they care if Biden is or is not corrupt in some way? It's an American problem, not theirs. Why would your average Ukrainian want their limited resources to go toward investigating an American politician? If anything, I would think that the pressure would be for Zelensky et al to quit doing Trump's bidding and pay more attention to domestic issues -- of which there are plenty.

Look, it is obvious to anyone what happened here. That's really not a question. The question before us (really, before the Senate) is will Trump be held accountable for this mess?
I don't think there is a large audience for CNN anywhere. Unless you count people stuck in the airport. LMAO.
  #27  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:15 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 42,257
My only real curiosity is whether you came up with this silliness on your own, Jim Peeples, or whether this is actually a take that's gaining traction on Fox or Townhall or some other hard-right site. In earlier times that wouldn't be a question, but the rightwing media is pretty unbelievably ridiculous these days, so....
  #28  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:19 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
My only real curiosity is whether you came up with this silliness on your own, Jim Peeples, or whether this is actually a take that's gaining traction on Fox or Townhall or some other hard-right site. In earlier times that wouldn't be a question, but the rightwing media is pretty unbelievably ridiculous these days, so....
Go ahead look, I didn't see it anywhere. I could have saved a lot of typing if I could have found a link.
  #29  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:29 AM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
We can be totally certain about his state of mind. There are numerous accounts (cited above) of Trump discussing candidate Biden before April, 2019. You keep ignoring that for some reason. Probably because it completely invalidates your OP.
I am quoting this because it's possible that Jim Peebles did not see it for some reason.
  #30  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:30 AM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boycott View Post
Trump was discussing Biden's potential candidacy months before Biden formally joined the race.

13th January 2019: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaig...rom-scrap-heap

6th February 2019: https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...19-2?r=US&IR=T
I am quoting this because it is possible that Jim Peebles did not see it for some reason.
  #31  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:35 AM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
https://mobile.twitter.com/realdonal...b071a25a85c9c4
  #32  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:36 AM
Superdude's Avatar
Superdude is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: The Fortress of Solidude
Posts: 10,858
Well, in his defense, it IS hard to read something with your eyes shut tight, and difficult to hear when one's fingers are poked in one's ears.
__________________
It's chaos. Be kind.
  #33  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:43 AM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superdude View Post
Well, in his defense, it IS hard to read something with your eyes shut tight, and difficult to hear when one's fingers are poked in one's ears.
That's why no one is accepting I am right; you are actually defending my debating skills, which should have persuaded everyone by now. LMAO.
  #34  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:48 AM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiveyearlurker View Post
I mean, if only we had some evidence that Trump was aware that Biden was discussing running for president before that. That would be pretty devastating for your hypothesis.
If there is evidence in any of those three links that mentions Biden himself actually discussing running, I missed it. But anyway, the idea that Trump had no idea, no how, no way that Biden might in fact run even if he hadn't explicitly said so, is kind of silly. When the circumstances fit, Joe Biden runs for president. That's what he does! It makes perfect sense that Trump and his goons would be concerned about it, and try to get something going against Biden as soon as they could. But, given that Biden was not a shoo-in for the nomination then, as of course he isn't now, and given that at that point it could have been any number of people, it does suggest to me the following question: if Trump meant to go after Biden purely to discredit him as a possible opponent, why didn't he do the same thing against Warren, Sanders, et. al? Hmm!
  #35  
Old 01-17-2020, 11:54 AM
Euphonious Polemic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 12,730
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
But, given that Biden was not a shoo-in for the nomination then, as of course he isn't now, and given that at that point it could have been any number of people, it does suggest to me the following question: if Trump meant to go after Biden purely to discredit him as a possible opponent, why didn't he do the same thing against Warren, Sanders, et. al? Hmm!
- Biden was widely seen as the person who could beat Trump.
- Oppo research and smearing plans had already been made against Warren, Sanders et al. For Biden, they had no plan and had to scramble.
- Lack of obvious opportunity to discredit Warren, Sanders et al
- The plans to do the same thing to Warren, Sanders et al were waiting in the wings
- Trump and his minions are fucking stupid.
  #36  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:02 PM
steronz is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oh-hiya-Maude
Posts: 5,319
By continuing to post in this thread while refusing to acknowledge a rebuttal to his theory that has now been highlighted to him SEVEN times, it's become clear that he is not arguing in good faith.

Last edited by steronz; 01-17-2020 at 12:02 PM.
  #37  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:02 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 27,685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Peebles View Post
So in order to prove the intent portion of this state of mind crime, we need to assume Trump even heard things Biden discussed, and believed Biden would finally decide to run after hearing those unofficial discussions.
Well, there's a point buried in here somewhere. For a President who didn't know what happened at Pearl Harbor, one can simply not assume that he is aware of any common knowledge.

However, Fox News reported on March 12, 2019 -- same date as the text -- that Biden was likely to run.

Since Trump has two modes (golf and Fox News) I think it's safe to assume that Trump saw that piece.
  #38  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:06 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
I remember when Biden announced. I posted here saying essentially that the same thing will happen as the last two times he ran. He'll get some attention, but fade fast, because for whatever reason people just don't see him as presidential material. Trump's people are much closer to politics than I am, so maybe they didn't feel the same way. Maybe they were able to forsee Biden's incredible staying power up to this point, and knew immediately that something must be done right away. But it's always been in the back of my mind that it doesn't make a lot of sense to get dirt on Biden, and then blow your wad early, before you even know if he's going to be the guy you run against. Better to hold off until a few months before the election, and then use it. I suppose they might have felt that the leverage they had then to get an announcement of the investigation out would fade over time, so better early than never.

I rather facetiously suggested above that it doesn't make sense that Trump would only go after Biden early. But why, really? Perhaps to send a message to others that might run, this is what's going to happen to you if you fuck with Team Trump?
  #39  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:10 PM
Procrustus is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. ¥
Posts: 12,858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I remember when Biden announced. I posted here saying essentially that the same thing will happen as the last two times he ran. He'll get some attention, but fade fast, because for whatever reason people just don't see him as presidential material. Trump's people are much closer to politics than I am, so maybe they didn't feel the same way. Maybe they were able to forsee Biden's incredible staying power up to this point, and knew immediately that something must be done right away. But it's always been in the back of my mind that it doesn't make a lot of sense to get dirt on Biden, and then blow your wad early, before you even know if he's going to be the guy you run against. Better to hold off until a few months before the election, and then use it. I suppose they might have felt that the leverage they had then to get an announcement of the investigation out would fade over time, so better early than never.

I rather facetiously suggested above that it doesn't make sense that Trump would only go after Biden early. But why, really? Perhaps to send a message to others that might run, this is what's going to happen to you if you fuck with Team Trump?
As I recall the Nixon campaign bugged the Watergate offices because they were worried about Senator Muskie. Turns out they won with a huge landslide over Mondale.
  #40  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:12 PM
Sage Rat's Avatar
Sage Rat is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Howdy
Posts: 22,598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
if Trump meant to go after Biden purely to discredit him as a possible opponent, why didn't he do the same thing against Warren, Sanders, et. al? Hmm!
One expects that he has. It just didn't intersect with foreign policy.

Or, plausibly, he doesn't believe that his opponent will be anyone but Biden, and he's always right, ergo....

Last edited by Sage Rat; 01-17-2020 at 12:14 PM.
  #41  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:12 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious Polemic View Post
- Biden was widely seen as the person who could beat Trump.
- Oppo research and smearing plans had already been made against Warren, Sanders et al. For Biden, they had no plan and had to scramble.
- Lack of obvious opportunity to discredit Warren, Sanders et al
- The plans to do the same thing to Warren, Sanders et al were waiting in the wings
- Trump and his minions are fucking stupid.
See above post as to Biden being widely seen as that person. I don't remember this, but that certainly doesn't mean it wasn't so.

As for smearing plans being made, I suppose it's possible. But without evidence, this is only conjecture. And I don't think Giuliani being involved in/aware of the Hunter Biden connection since at least Nov 2018 is necessarily "scrambling". The plan could have been in the works for months.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-17-2020 at 12:13 PM.
  #42  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:14 PM
DSeid's Avatar
DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 23,346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
My only real curiosity is whether you came up with this silliness on your own, Jim Peeples, or whether this is actually a take that's gaining traction on Fox or Townhall or some other hard-right site. In earlier times that wouldn't be a question, but the rightwing media is pretty unbelievably ridiculous these days, so....
It is of note that even those sites see this specific spin as too silly to even float.

They've gone in other directions:

Parnas is a known liar, nothing from him is credible.

And what he brings forth is too incredibly big to be believed.

Or only relates to rogue Rudy not Trump.
  #43  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:15 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sage Rat View Post
One expects that he has. It just didn't intersect with foreign policy.
I take it you mean he has plans ready to go, not that he as actually gone after the rest the way he wanted to go after Biden? We shall see.

ETA: And the point was, if you go after Biden early, why not go after the rest early. Not that Trump won't eventually go after whomever, as of course he will.

Last edited by Fiddle Peghead; 01-17-2020 at 12:17 PM.
  #44  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:23 PM
Sinaptics is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
I take it you mean he has plans ready to go, not that he as actually gone after the rest the way he wanted to go after Biden? We shall see.

ETA: And the point was, if you go after Biden early, why not go after the rest early. Not that Trump won't eventually go after whomever, as of course he will.
The obvious answer is that he thought he had a better shot running against other contenders such as Sanders. Knock Biden out and you'll get one of the others.

As further evidence, here is a 3/28/19 poll that shows Biden as the clear frontrunner:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2611

Last edited by Sinaptics; 01-17-2020 at 12:26 PM. Reason: clarity
  #45  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:23 PM
Skywatcher's Avatar
Skywatcher is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Potomac
Posts: 35,759
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
As for smearing plans being made, I suppose it's possible. But without evidence, this is only conjecture.
How 'bout a Trump campaign official?
Quote:
The RNC is “going to make whoever the nominee is radioactive well before they get the nomination,” a former campaign official told Axios. “That’s Trump’s strategy. Stay at 45-46% [in the polls] and just make the other guy radioactive.”

Last edited by Skywatcher; 01-17-2020 at 12:24 PM.
  #46  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:28 PM
SingleMalt is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Front Range
Posts: 344
Isn't the only reason the public became aware of the anti-Biden effort was because of the whistleblower report? Maybe there are similar efforts underway vs. Warren and Sanders, and we just haven't had an analogous exposure of the plot?
  #47  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:30 PM
Fiveyearlurker is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,953
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fiddle Peghead View Post
If there is evidence in any of those three links that mentions Biden himself actually discussing running, I missed it.
First of all, there are plenty of quotes from Biden discussing running in 2020 before he announced his official candidacy. Including from these links:

"Biden is considered to be a leading 2020 Democratic hopeful. The former vice president has played coy about his future political prospects and said he plans to make a 2020 decision by January. "

"As a growing wave of Democrats declared their candidacy to retake the White House, Biden has reportedly mulled a 2020 campaign in recent weeks. Senior campaign positions have reportedly been hashed out and donors have been targeted, according to The Atlantic."

Second of all, this is entirely irrelevant because the OP hinges on the absolutely ludicrous assertion that Trump didn't have any idea before the very moment that Biden announced his candidacy that Biden might be his opponent. I mean, I can't actually believe that I'm arguing about this because this is so transparently ridiculous.
  #48  
Old 01-17-2020, 12:51 PM
Jim Peebles is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by DSeid View Post
It is of note that even those sites see this specific spin as too silly to even float.

They've gone in other directions:

Parnas is a known liar, nothing from him is credible.

And what he brings forth is too incredibly big to be believed.

Or only relates to rogue Rudy not Trump.
It's a Rudy text, presumable to Parnas. So it doesn't matter if Parnas is a liar. Rudy has tweeted the "before Biden announced" argument:
https://mobile.twitter.com/RudyGiuli...49665293520902
Quote:
This is corruption at the highest levels of the Obama administration, which included illegal impact from Ukraine on the 2016 election. I was investigating this as an attorney to vindicate my client. It began and was largely done before Biden announced his run for President.
The Dems made a dump with the text we are discussing, and then removed the entire dump (see the intro to the article in the original link for this thread).

The text further exonerates Trump in that the Ambassador (not a political opponent) is lumped in with Biden in the "on the record" request. (As I have pointed out above.)

It is possible sites simply haven't noticed it.

(This opens the complaint that an impeachment trial should follow "Brady material" rules, and exculpatory info like this is not being handed over to Trump's defense.)

Last edited by Jim Peebles; 01-17-2020 at 12:54 PM.
  #49  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:05 PM
Fiddle Peghead's Avatar
Fiddle Peghead is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Harlem, New York, NY
Posts: 4,721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinaptics View Post
The obvious answer is that he thought he had a better shot running against other contenders such as Sanders. Knock Biden out and you'll get one of the others.

As further evidence, here is a 3/28/19 poll that shows Biden as the clear frontrunner:

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release...ReleaseID=2611
The poll shows Biden 10 points above O'Rourke. Well yeah, that's a frontrunner but it's not like no one else is even close. But certainly knocking out Biden is better than not doing so. Makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Skywatcher View Post
Your link mentions legitimate political tactics, despite the use of the word "radioactive." There is no hint of smearing at that link.
  #50  
Old 01-17-2020, 01:06 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is online now
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bedlam
Posts: 30,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijou Drains View Post
Biden is running? Since when?
Since he turned 35? Since third grade? Since his third trimester in his mom?
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017