Let’s be even more clear.
I Uber. A lot. And have Sirius X/M tuned to the news shows constantly since this broke. And I have people, all the time, ask me what I think “about all this”, and when they do I first ask them “what do you think?”
And in all this time, all these rides, all the conversations, not a single one has mentioned Schiff or his opening statement. It is a 100% non-issue for a public who, in my experience, are just becoming aware as to the basics of this topic.
The “transcript”, testimony, etc. You are arguing that the public mood in December is going to be more influenced by a 4 minute statement made in September than the entire documentary and testimonial evidence provided next week and subsequently, an argument which is preposterous.
I am stunned that you think the public is mulling Schiff’s statement. It’s a complete non-issue.
I see that Trump is passing out t-shirts at rallies urging people to “READ THE TRANSCRIPT!”
Urging his rally-goers to read a transcript doesn’t really seem like a winning ask…
The problem is that you took him literally but not seriously?
He was doing something that people do…all the time…the young and the old…in govt and out of it.
Do you think the electorate are such stupid morons that they have never heard a paraphrase in their lives and cannot negotiate it intellectually? You sound just as desperate as the bupkis.
How sanguine are you about the case again? The bupkis are saying they are not even going to read the transcripts. Does that sound like the case is plain as day at the moment?
Aren’t you pulling in two directions?
If only Schiff hadn’t done this, Republicans would be on the up-and-up, and wouldn’t manufacture some bullshit narrative to accuse Democrats of! What a grievous error by Schiff, allowing the Party of Swiftboats to break their decades-long streak of integrity and honest representation of Democrats in such a way.
Come the fuck on. If Schiff hadn’t done this, they would be harping on some other equally lame lie about Democrats. The correct response to their lame lies isn’t to wag a finger at Democrats, it’s to confront them for lying.
Dear thick skulled Donnie,
The reason that the impeachment inquiry is underway is because people read the transcript. It was kind of perfect, in a way that you can’t see.
Go fuck yourself,
bobot
It might for his rally goers. “See? He’s encouraging us to read it, so despite what evil Dems are saying, it doesn’t matter! MAGA!”
Because the case is “obvious” and doesn’t require explanation?
Even if it is obvious to a sane person, we got 40 % of the country to whom nothing is obvious. We got all the R politicians that matter in that space too. The contest between these forces (It is real vs it is a hoax) is real and happening right now. In that context schiffs statement is supporting of reality, and as against a huge wedge who have lost their grip on it.
I think Schiff is handling this very well. But even if I’m wrong, at the very worst he’s guilty of a minor tactical error, handing some minor ammunition to Trumpers.
It’s a term from soccer, meaning “accidentally kicking the ball into your own goal, and giving your opponent a point.”
Regarding this and Trump wanting to do a “fireside chat” and “read” the transcript to the public. What are the odds that Trump conveniently skips over a word or two in this transcript to change the narrative.
I definitely wouldn’t put money on him not doing this! Then Trump nation can say "you see no “quid pro quo”! Because why read something when someone can read it to you.
MtM
The guy can’t keep on script for three sentences. It would be a blast: “And then the other guy, whatshisname said, “I’d like to buy some Javelin missiles.” Why do they call them Javelins? What the hell is a Javelin? Have you heard of those little pig-looking things they have in Arizona, they kind of look like armadillos – why name a missile after that? By the way, Arizona doesn’t have many good hotels, but they do have a big, beautiful wall. Ukraine knows this – they want the wall too.” etc. etc.
So there’s three options: he reads the transcript, it takes 10 minutes, and everyone gets to then ask why there’s 20 minutes of call time missing. Or, he reads the transcript and it takes two hours because he starts talking about L’il Adam Schiff. Or, he doesn’t do a fireside chat at all.
The answer is obvious.
That is how I see it. Schiff had a very clear case to make. The transcript was not a hundred pages of convoluted language, it was very easy to understand. His parody was a distraction and the next day that was what was being discussed, not the damning words of Trump. If you are prosecuting a case you don’t want to do anything to distract from your argument. Now I think Fiddle Peghead has greatly exaggerated Schiff’s mistake, it’s mostly forgotten except by Trump, who is calling Schiff a liar, but in a weird way that is a good thing. Anyone with any comprehension of the English language understands the preface Schiff gave to the parody. Trump shows he will lie and anything including lying.
Schiff is doing a great job, and that should be the focus, not an ill-advised parody
If he does read it, I think that we can trust that he’ll skip over the part that explicitly states that it’s not an actual transcript.
He’s trying to accomplish a few things:
Trump wants to create an entire story where he’s the hero, out crusading against the villain. By the time we get to the part where he’s shooting into a crowd, your brain interprets it the same way that we interpret it when Bruce Willis shoots out the side of his car.
And all of that neglecting that Trump was never the hero to begin with.
No, *you *come the fuck on. As you should well know, I never made any such claims, and you are using a cheap propagandist technique to try and discredit me.
A general reply: The important part of my original response about if Schiff should be writing an Op-Ed was, that yes, he should use all means at his disposal to get the word out about why Trump should be impeached. But all anybody cared about was the fact that I criticized Schiff. I notice this quite a bit. I, as a progressive, make a comment that doesn’t praise a Democrat to high heaven or gasp! actually makes a criticism, and the bullshit implications and outright falsities start flying. It gets old, believe me.
*“(CNN)*The top US diplomat in Ukrainetold Congress that it was his “clear understanding” that US security aid to Ukraine wouldn’t happen unless the country’s president announced he would investigate President Donald Trump’s political rivals, according to a transcript of Ambassador Bill Taylor’s depositionreleased Wednesday.
…
On Wednesday, Democrats announced that Taylor is one of three impeachment witnesses who will testify publicly as the impeachment investigation moves into a new phase.
Taylor, a career official, testified under subpoena in a closed session before House lawmakers on October 22. In his opening statement, Taylor said he was told by US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland that Trump was withholding military aid from Ukraine until Zelensky announced investigations into Biden and 2016 election interference.”
In my first post on this, I did say it was the biggest mistake or words to that effect by a Democrat this year. That was an exaggeration. I have made no specific claims since then about the effect of the parody, for ill or good, but that has been implied and that is what I object to.
But John, I am not arguing any such thing. This is a perfect example of what I just wrote. And they don’t have to be mulling it. It is there on videotape, for any propagandist who wants to use it to do so. Will they? And if they do, will it help their cause? I have no idea. But why give them the ammo?
They will take it in the spirit of “read the bible” in which they all agree its a good idea but don’t bother because they all know what it says anyway, until you ask one about god’s command to rip open pregnant women and they give you a blank stare.
Yup, this is no different from claims that Democrats want open borders, or that the green new deal out laws meat. If you are going to come down hard on anyone who unfairly paraphrases something their opponent said, then your going to have to censor half of what is said on the house floor.
They. Don’t. Need. Ammo.
They will invent it out of thin air if they need to.
It does not matter what the Democrats do or don’t do during the impeachment process they will scream bloody murder regardless.