I would assume by what this statement implies, that you aren’t of a mind that the American public is just a bunch of stupid morons, that they are willing to look at evidence? The point is, again, he did not need to add to the summary. The case is plain as day, and not hard to understand. Why cloud the issue with a bullshit parody?
If Trump supporters looked at evidence and facts, we would not have a President Trump.
Unless, of course, they WANT a moron President. Which, is very possibly the case.
Schiff was trying to make a point by using hyperbole and … dare I say it … humor. He didn’t preface his remarks with “The following is a parody for rhetorical effect and not to be taken literally”, because all functional humans understand that without being told. The only group that took him literally are those people who are so desperate for any life preserver in the tidal wave of incriminating evidence that they are clinging to the most remote, improbable and ridiculous interpretation of his words.
So your argument is that it’s Schiff’s fault for saying something that could be edited and then grossly misinterpreted by other people who are dishonest and corrupt.
Yes, that checks out.
In Schiff’s defense, he probably figured that a paraphrase, even one that was announced to be so, was the only way to get through to Republicans. I mean, that guy saw what the Mueller report had to suffer by Barr before it was safe for Republican ears.
The Democrats don’t need huge numbers of undecided voters to come over to their side to beat Trump next year. I’d argue that they don’t really need any as of now, but that’s another thread. In any case, it’s the undecideds that I think could be swayed, not the MAGA hatters. I agree that they are morons.
No, it is not my argument, given that I never said that. It’s not his fault for what other people do. It is my argument, once again, that it was unnecessary to do what he did.
I have considered this possibility, that he felt the need to exaggerate for the sake of emphasis, and it seems probable. But if you are doing that to convince Trump diehards, is it not much more likely that they would raise a hue and cry, and that the whole thing would be counterproductive with them? I know this is easy to say in retrospect, but I would think this is rather obvious.
What is obvious is that there is no course of action for any Democrat that will ever be seen as legitimate by Trump supporters. They will cry about literally anything and everything. Why should we let them bully everyone this way? Better to just carry on with the process and tune out the wailing. It will never stop no matter how this plays out or what the Democrats do or don’t do. How is that not clear by now?
Given that Trump (or, more often, his spokespeople) have, on more than one occasion, walked back particularly strange or outrageous comments by him with the defense “he was joking,” it’s obviously disingenous for them to then complain about Schiff’s statement.
But, as you suggest, his diehard supporters will never see it that way. I like Schiff, generally, but I think that his exaggeration wasn’t necessary, and at least a bit of an “own goal.”
Lol, need I remind you that you’re the only one confused by this? The rest of us… even those that got our law from Dick Wolf… recognize the difference between an opening statement and documentary evidence. Given your insistence on needing documentation re: Trump and Putin, I am surprised* that your position on this is the exact opposite: You have the documentation, why are you focusing on rumors? :rolleyes:
:shakes fist at Walken:
Hearing that Junior outed the whistleblower, and that the White House is desperately trying to save his ass. Or, really, its ass, as it claims it had no foreknowledge that he was going to do this, and Jr. is whining “what? You expect me to read every link I share?”
C’mon, conservatives! Defend this!
A story on NPR today stated (surprisingly, to me) that it’s not illegal to out a whistleblower. The WB protection laws protect against retaliation, but don’t guarantee anonymity.
Exposing the wb could be an impeachable offense, and be cause for civil litigation…just not criminal.
So it sounds inevitable that the wb will be outed sooner or later.
This discussion on my part is about the efficacy of Schiff’s parody. I’ve been trying to make that clear. I don’t like generalities, but certainly large numbers of Trump supporters feel as you say, and no, we shouldn’t let them bully us. But that is your point, not mine.
The bold pretty much echos my position. Undecided, open people might be persuaded to vote Democratic. I don’t know what an “own goal” is.
You yet again read something into what I’ve said. I am confused by nothing, and I have no idea what rumors I am supposedly focusing on.
ETA: :rolleyes:
I’m not sure that I agree with them although I will admit the law isn’t crystal clear.
“Official proceeding” includes proceedings before congress. The person harassed doesn’t actually have to be the same person who is dissuaded from participation in the proceeding. If harassing the whistleblower dissuades other witnesses from testifying before congress, it fits within the plain language of the statute.
The real question is whether outing the whistleblower can be seen as harassment. Ordinarily, harassment requires a sustained effort, rather than a one-time action. However, outing a whistleblower in this climate can reasonably be seen as harassment, given the coordination of trolls on the internet. They will dox that person and make his life a living hell in short order. Outing the person would be just the first step in unleashing this harassment campaign. I think the statute fits but there is room for a court to conclude that the singular act of outing a person, without evidence of further intention that this outing would lead to harassment, doesn’t break the law.
Well, the whole thing blew up in public before Zelensky could fulfill his part of the bargain. So a slight adjustment of the analogy would be that I have taken the $20 out of my pocket and am about to give it to you when your supervisor stops by to check on you. So you quickly give me my license and I put the money back in my pocket. But your main point holds. Just because you got caught before you could accept the bribe doesn’t mean that you didn’t do something wrong in soliciting it.
In your “Is Trump an agent of a foreign power” thread, you are demanding documentary evidence so you can dismiss a whole metric shitload of circumstantial evidence, to make a baseless argument favorable to Trump.
Now, in this thread, you are rejecting a whole metric shitload of documentary evidence in order to manufacture a piece of circumstantial evidence which itself doesn’t exist, all to make a baseless argument favorable to Trump.
So, now that that is cleared up for the audience here, I again reject your hypothesis as it completely flies against established procedures: Opening statements are not evidence.
I object! Attempt to influence the jury. What does this have to do with Schiff?
I have no clue what you are talking about. NONE. I could try and pose a question so we could be clear, but I don’t know where to begin. For starters, though, what “shitload of documentary evidence” am I rejecting?