To believe the Trump/Fox alternate reality that Sondland somehow exonerated Trump, you’d have to ignore virtually everything Sondland said, including these highlights from his opening statement. pic.twitter.com/A2NlruaYEM
— Chris Lu (@ChrisLu44) November 21, 2019
I haven't had the opportunity to sit down and bang out my thoughts about the testimony this week, but in all honesty, it is fascinating to view the different media environments that people on the left and right seem to inhabit--and I would even say not all people on the right. Ambassador Sondland basically said that there was an obvious quid pro quo, everyone knew about it, and he connected the dots pretty well. And yet, some people have seized on him responding to a question that Trump did not specifically put into words anything to the effect of "I would like you all to do an extortion with me" as being somehow evidence that it didn't happen.
Well, of course he didn't say it in so many words. The president's intent should be clear, as is the culpability of officials like Mulvaney and Pompeo in going along with it. The further testimony of Laura Cooper that Ukraine was well aware of the hold on aid as early as July annihilated another GOP talking point.
Facts matter.
But, the degree of delusion-level denialism here:
I never in my wildest dreams thought my name would in any way be associated with the ugly word, Impeachment! The calls (Transcripts) were PERFECT, there was NOTHING said that was wrong. No pressure on Ukraine. Great corruption & dishonesty by Schiff on the other side!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2019
We would not all be at this point if everything was PERFECT on that call. When asked, many people have now said it was irregular for the president to condition aid this way, that if this were the case, it would be wrong. There would be no calls to the NSC lawyers, no whistleblower report. No impeachment inquiry.
It looks bad because it is bad.
4 comments:
The truly frightening response has come from the untethered rightwing internet which has declared Traitor Trump totally vindicated by the testimony. The Magat Horde is going to react violently when their Tyrant is Impeached.
You bet. The "defense" chosen for the Administration to the effect that this is a "coup attempt" or that Democrats are trying to reverse the election results and all that propaganda is aimed at a kind of right-left manifestation of the cold culture war into a hot one. It isn't just dishonest, it's dangerous.
Salutations, Vixen, the best to you and your family.
I realize that everything seems to be up in the air right now, but there are some things that we could easily lose sight of.
1) This is not an impeachment hearing, it is an inquiry to determine whether impeachment is warranted. As long as Democrats keep this going they provide a daily commercial that will end when the inquiry is concluded. Maybe it's better to just keep the inquiry going for the purposes of a free commercial.
2) Needless to say, no substantiating evidence that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors has been established. And since Trump has released the transcripts we know what took place in the conversations, and as a consequence something enormous would have to transpire to impeach a duly elected president.
3) Should an impeachment trial take place, it would be extremely naive to imagine that the Republican senate would decide to convict the president. Right now Trump's favorables are higher than O's were at the same time during his first term. Republicans and some centrist Democrats have an appreciation of President Trump, and it would be wise for Democrats to figure out why that is rather than knee-jerk condemnation
4) It is unlikely that Democrats would want an impeachment trial in the senate. Republicans could slow-walk the trial as presently Democrats are doing with the inquiry. This would mean that D senators would are presidential candidates would not be able to speak to the impeachment process nor answer questions on news programs, and would be locked out of a great deal of campaigning due to having to follow the rules of the senate. Booker, Harris, and the others would not want their campaigns smothered while being more or less under a gag order.
These are just a few of the salient points. Imagine a campaign in which Tulsi Gabbard had free rein to vocalize all her concerns, but US senators had to keep their mouths shut – bad mojo for Democrats, I suspect.
It would probably be wise for the Democrats to simply keep the hearings going for as long and possible in order to keep people speaking ill of the president while not being enough to being articles of impeachment.
A wonderful Thanksgiving to all.
Formerly Amherst! Best to you and yours! Great points--this is not a trial, which I grate on especially when I hear the "due process" complaint from the Trump fans on the right--this doesn't apply, because this is more like a grand jury proceeding, with the singular exception that the evidence gets to be broadcast in public in the name of the "transparency" that GOP reps like Matt Gaetz agitated for. I said it then--this was not a great idea. So long as the hearings were in private, the information flow was limited and the sides didn't really even have to message. Once transcripts were released and the hearings were broadcast--this became, like it or not, a more political affair. Once people can argue about a thing, the more the truth gets a bit colored, because many people are not either critical thinkers or necessarily totally honest and so, facts are measured by rubber inches. They get pulled out of shape.
The dots are all in place, it remains for people to connect them. I guess this was also the case for the "collusion" argument with respects to the Mueller Report. Some people will go out of their way to do the math, some people will have every dot connected for them, and still swear they can't see the picture--this is what partisanship does. I see the problem with Trump's Russia-related fealty and how Ukraine figures into that, and how, if he was trying specifically to throw Ukraine into Putin's sphere and be done with eastern European defense altogether, he could have just said it. He didn't, and had he done so, a lot of conservatives and national security minded people would have pumped the brakes with a vengeance.
I think the House Dems would be wise hold out and see if they could get the principals called out by Sondland--Mulvaney, Perry, Pompeo, especially. We are not ever going to get testimony from Pence or Trump, for many reasons. But I think it is very true that the notorious absence of their statements peaks volumes.
You are right--in the absence of being able to effectively use the impeachment process for its intended purpose, it does serve as a kind of commercial--it is an advertisement especially against representatives like Nunes and Jordan and Stefaniak, who have made some extraordinary grandstanding gestures. It also tells us all about useless Reps we never knew about, like Chris Stewart and Brad Wenstrup. They are advertising their awfulness. It isn't a "coup" as in overthrowing the elected government, but it might be a colloquial "coup" in the sense of more people realizing their representatives are conspiracy-theory gargling idiots.
Post a Comment