Yeah, I know what you mean. It’s all become so quotidian.
But as a vegetarian and a St. Louisan, I thought that was a cool story.
Gosh. How’d you ever guess? Yes. Yes he does: The Trump-Ketchup Controversy
You are CORRECT sir!
What if Giuliani stumbled upon the whole Ukraine/Biden thing as a result of his involvement in other matters in that part of the world, and that he originated the idea of going after Biden? Then he brought it to Trump earlier this year, and of course Trump immediately got on board. When I read this article in that context, my first thought is that Trump is saying to O’Reilly that he did not have Giuliani go out cold and try to find stuff starting last year. That is what Trump means when he said he didn’t direct him. We know of course from the Zelensky conversation that Trump wanted the Ukranian to call Rudy, but that doesn’t contradict Trump not directing Rudy from the beginning.
Trump:
Assuming for the sake of argument that Trump is not in fact a criminal mastermind, but instead a hapless, bumbling idiot*, then the above quote fits in with this idea. This certainly doesn’t absolve Trump of wrongdoing, and he should still be thrown out on his ass…
*Which of course goes without saying.
ETA: I only know what O’Reilly and Trump said in the interview from what is in this CNN article.
Benefit of the doubt is there for those that deserve it.
You don’t get it when all you do is lie 24/7.
Literal truth is a very effective method of lying.
My car doesn’t have a gas cap, for example.
Q: Did you put sugar in the gas tank?
A: Didn’t touch the gas cap.
Whether Trump was being literal or lying, who knows.
Yep.
Yeah, I think your fourth paragraph adequately sums up the problem with this idea. The Chicago Tribune came out with an editorial in favor of censure yesterday, which motivated me to finally get around to cancelling my subscription. Really should have done that long ago.
That’s the editorial that got me thinking about it! Here’s the sentence that steamed my shorts:
To impeach and expel represents the overturning of an election, and thus the effective suspension of our democratic system due to dire emergency.
The election which would supposedly be overturned by this impeachment and removal happened three years ago! According to this logic, no president should ever be removed, no matter what they do, because it’s a “suspension of our democratic system.”
I guess they believe that, in case of a “dire emergency,” it would be worth it, but seeking (but ultimately failing) to leverage the power of the presidency for personal political gain doesn’t qualify. Nor do obstruction of justice and witness intimidation to cover up that effort. Never mind that all that was done to gain an advantage in the next election – we must protect the democratic process!
Right wing media, November 2016: we are a republic, not a democracy!
Right wing media, November 2019: we can’t allow threats to our democracy!
The fuck? It is using our democratic system to remove the dire emergency.
Despite that befuddling “logic,” I’m not cancelling my Chicago Tribune subscription, because they also publish Steve Chapman, who writes:
“If Trump is not impeached and removed, the message will be that presidents can get always with virtually anything. If he isn’t held fully accountable for his abuses, he will set a new low standard for acceptable conduct. And we can expect the same, if not worse, from future presidents.”
He’s no liberal by any stretch, so his consistent and insightful criticisms of this administration carry even more weight.
Bolton could still have an effect on the impeachment proceedings without testifying as part of the inquiry. His book could reveal details of impeachable conduct. He could also potentially be compelled to appear in the Senate trial.
From Los Angeles Times:
I hear this one a lot, but it doesn’t wash. When and if a Dem tries the same kind of crap, the Republicans will scream bloody murder and any accusations of hypocrisy will have as much impact on them as current such accusations do.
No, um, doubt. Trump is that rather rare individual where it is much more sensible to start with the notion that he is lying, and then maybe try to investigate if he’s telling the truth . But to be clear, I’m not trying to give him any benefit. It’s kinda like the saying a broken clock is correct two times a day. Trump lies so much, that it’s inevitable that occasionally something comes out of his mouth that is actually true, not matter how far-fetched it seems.
Continuing my from previous post on Trump directing Giuliani…
Since as far back as the NATO kerfuffle in 2018, where if you remember Trump briefly considered, or at least brought up, the idea of leaving NATO because countries weren’t paying their fair share, we’ve known Trump has an aversion to other countries “cheating” the U.S. out of money. Trump is happy as president pretty much ignoring the rest of the world except when he has to go to a global summit, or lay a wreath at Flanders Field. But then he gets wind of the fact that Ukraine might be getting millions of dollars in military aid, and his ears perk up.
Mark Sandy, the only person from the OMB to testify behind closed doors to impeachment investigators:
Suppose, just suppose, that after hearing about this, Trump sees a way to actually do something as president, and it’s based on the one thing he measures his worth by: money. He demands a hold be put on the aid until he can look into it, and being the master of the art of the deal, can then decide whether it’s a good idea and makes sense for the U.S. Only after this does Giuliani come to Trump with his master plan to take down Biden. Trump thinks, why the hell not, and then has his call with Zelensky. He is both truly concerned about a corrupt (in his head) Ukraine maybe getting aid it doesn’t deserve, and now interested in political advantage that can be gained with the whole Biden thing.
A key thing here is when did Giuliani go to Trump with the Biden angle? If it was before Trump heard about the aid, then that delivers a huge blow to the above. Ah, but what if it was after?!
Is this completely far-fetched? I’ve only put about as much time into thinking about it as it took me to write it down. But I would not say the answer to that question is a definitive “yes”. One way of course to know more about what happened is to get others involved to testify. But no, in the rush to get the impeachment over before Xmas, the Dems decided to only go through the motions to a pretty big degree, and to just look like they were doing there job vis-a-vis impeachment. I’m pretty sure of one thing though: even if the above is totally nuts, it’s what we’re gonna here once the senate trial (hopefully) starts.
A problem with this theory is the timeline:
May 23 2019: The Defense Department testifies to the relevant congressional committees that their extensive study of the matter had determined that Ukraine had “made sufficient progress on anti-corruption efforts to merit the [release of] the [previously-approved by Congress] security funds.”*
June 18 2019: The Pentagon announces that the $250-million aid package will go to Ukraine.*
June 19 2019: Trump (very possibly) sees a Washington Examiner story stating that the money is going to Ukraine.
Say that Trump, all-around-law-abiding guy who hates corruption in all its forms, says to his staff ‘what about this $250 million going to Ukraine? We just handing this over? Putin tells me Ukraine is mega-corrupt! We shouldn’t just hand that money over!’
And his staff, doing a quick check, says ‘Mr. President, the Pentagon did an extensive study to be sure the corruption problem is taken care of sufficiently to merit handing over the money; they briefed Congress on the progress Ukraine has made in getting rid of corruption and are satisfied they’re doing well.’
And then Trump might say ‘who cares, I don’t believe the Pentagon have any idea what they’re doing, Putin says Ukraine is corrupt and that’s enough for me.’
…All that seems plausible----but it’s not quite the same thing as ‘Trump was only concerned with fighting corruption.’ That’s not believable because Trump would have been told that his own Defense Department had looked into it and decided that corruption wasn’t really an issue.
So the Defense Department and the committees have this info. How does this detract from what I said? I didn’t bring up corruption, I brought up the possibility that Trump just didn’t want Ukraine to get aid until he looked into himself.
Essentially what I linked to in my Vox link.
I wouldn’t characterize Trump this way at all. Thus, I certainly don’t think that if Trump became concerned it was because he hates all possible corruption, but just “lucked into” becoming aware of Ukraine aid and decided to take action.
Or maybe the Pentagon said nothing to Trump, so of course he wouldn’t have said that. I have no idea. I’m just putting forth a possibility and I don’t think anything you say here knocks it down. But anyway, not to lose site of the main issue for me, and that is that the Dems were hasty, weren’t really interested in getting to the bottom of things, and have so far shirked their duty. I suppose they could still redeem themselves somewhat in the trial, but I’m not hopeful.
Yes.
It’s not plausible that he read anything in the Washington Examiner. Or anything at all.
And it’s not like he didn’t sign the original legislation that allocated the funds.
Make sure you tell them why.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
I like your second point. The first one is a bit silly, IMO.