The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Barrister]

The money was released after the whistleblower complaint was made public.  How much more do we need to know?

A paper trail would be nice.  Cuppa two tree staffers saying "yeah it was released because we got caught" under oath.

It would be nice.  But does the absence of such evidence really change things?

I had a case a couple months ago about a fellow who switched price tags on a very expensive violin (he put the tag of a beginner violin on instead).  There was a crimestopper tip publicized in the media.  This led to a tip about the identity of my Accused, but it also led to the violin being anonymously returned to police.

At trial Accused took the stand to admit buying the violin, but denied switching tags.  He admitted to returning the violin anonymously.  Returning the violin though was absolutely damning to the trial judge.

Sure, getting my violin fraudster to admit to the fraud would have been nice - but the evidence speaks for itself quite clearly.

[Malthus]

"Res ipsa loquitur". 

But in reality - just very powerful circumstantial evidence.

[Admiral Yi]

It would be nice.  But does the absence of such evidence really change things?

I had a case a couple months ago about a fellow who switched price tags on a very expensive violin (he put the tag of a beginner violin on instead).  There was a crimestopper tip publicized in the media.  This led to a tip about the identity of my Accused, but it also led to the violin being anonymously returned to police.

At trial Accused took the stand to admit buying the violin, but denied switching tags.  He admitted to returning the violin anonymously.  Returning the violin though was absolutely damning to the trial judge.

Sure, getting my violin fraudster to admit to the fraud would have been nice - but the evidence speaks for itself quite clearly.

At present a Republican talking point is that since the money got released and there was no announcement of an investigation by Ukraine, there was no quid pro quo.  I don't see that argument being rebutted by anyone publicly. 

[Razgovory]

The money was released after the whistleblower complaint was made public.  How much more do we need to know?

A paper trail would be nice.  Cuppa two tree staffers saying "yeah it was released because we got caught" under oath.

Yeah, that's why Trump is forbidding people in his administration with complying with legal subpoenas.

[Barrister]

At present a Republican talking point is that since the money got released and there was no announcement of an investigation by Ukraine, there was no quid pro quo.  I don't see that argument being rebutted by anyone publicly.

It's a stupid talking point.

We have evidence under oath that Trump asked for a quid pro quo from Ukraine with respect to the aid.  It's a matter of public record that after news of this was made public, the aid was released without any further explanation.

Contrary to the Sideshow Bobs of the world, an attempted crime is still a crime.

[Malthus]

At present a Republican talking point is that since the money got released and there was no announcement of an investigation by Ukraine, there was no quid pro quo.  I don't see that argument being rebutted by anyone publicly.

The eventual release of the money and lack of announced investigation is irrelevant. The story broke before Ukraine made up its mind whether to accept the offer, and it became impossible for Ukraine to announce it afterwards. The money was returned after the story broke and the natural inference is that it was a reaction to the story breaking.

It's the equivalent of a shoplifter quickly pulling the goods out of his pants and putting them back on the shelf after the security guard grabs them by the collar, then claiming no crime was committed. 

[Admiral Yi]

The eventual release of the money and lack of announced investigation is irrelevant. The story broke before Ukraine made up its mind whether to accept the offer, and it became impossible for Ukraine to announce it afterwards. The money was returned after the story broke and the natural inference is that it was a reaction to the story breaking.

It's the equivalent of a shoplifter quickly pulling the goods out of his pants and putting them back on the shelf after the security guard grabs them by the collar, then claiming no crime was committed.

And that makes you confident the American public understands those facts?

You're talking as if I'm the one that needs convincing.

[Malthus]

The eventual release of the money and lack of announced investigation is irrelevant. The story broke before Ukraine made up its mind whether to accept the offer, and it became impossible for Ukraine to announce it afterwards. The money was returned after the story broke and the natural inference is that it was a reaction to the story breaking.

It's the equivalent of a shoplifter quickly pulling the goods out of his pants and putting them back on the shelf after the security guard grabs them by the collar, then claiming no crime was committed.

And that makes you confident the American public understands those facts?

You're talking as if I'm the one that needs convincing.

I don't think there is any talking points or really anything else that can enlighten the Trump-supporting American public as a collective entity. Trump could publicly announce he eats babies and his base would still support him.

I'm merely pointing out that, for anyone who thinks a bit, the Republican talking points you mentioned are not at all convincing. Unfortunately, that description doesn't appear to apply to Trump supporters.

[The Brain]

I am not aware of any Republican who gives even a single fuck about truth and reason.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't think there is any talking points or really anything else that can enlighten the Trump-supporting American public as a collective entity. Trump could publicly announce he eats babies and his base would still support him.

I'm merely pointing out that, for anyone who thinks a bit, the Republican talking points you mentioned are not at all convincing. Unfortunately, that description doesn't appear to apply to Trump supporters.

You answered my question about the American public by discussing Trump supporters.

[Sheilbh]

The money was released after the whistleblower complaint was made public.  How much more do we need to know?

A paper trail would be nice.  Cuppa two tree staffers saying "yeah it was released because we got caught" under oath.

I'm not convinced there's much formal decision making process in this administration.

At present a Republican talking point is that since the money got released and there was no announcement of an investigation by Ukraine, there was no quid pro quo.  I don't see that argument being rebutted by anyone publicly. 

Yeah. But, you know, getting caught isn't a defence.

[Malthus]

You answered my question about the American public by discussing Trump supporters.

For those who are not Trump supporters, the Republican talking points will presumably be unpersuasive because the defence they offer is on its face dumb.

I think most of the public, who are not blinded by partisanship, understand that a crime is bad, even if the criminal act doesn't come to fruition. If not, America is really in trouble.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah. But, you know, getting caught isn't a defence.

Yes, I know.  Geez.  I raise a question about the Democratic media strategy and you, like Malthus, feel the need to enlighten me personally.

I understand we have a number of frustrated press secretaries here on Languish, but how about some recognition that you're missing my point?  Why isn't someone on the Democratic side delivering these catchy one liners and pithy Latin phrases to the American public?

[Sheilbh]

Yes, I know.  Geez.  I raise a question about the Democratic media strategy and you, like Malthus, feel the need to enlighten me personally.

I understand we have a number of frustrated press secretaries here on Languish, but how about some recognition that you're missing my point?  Why isn't someone on the Democratic side delivering these catchy one liners and pithy Latin phrases to the American public?

Oh okay. My argument would that the Republicans are pushing a line because they're on the defensive and not in control of what happens next.

They're in control of the timetable. So far every day of hearings has been bad for Trump and every witness has been bad. I'd let that keep going day-after-day. Don't get into an argument with Republicans. Just say "that's what you say about Ambassador x. Now we move to Lt Col y."

My view is don't get in the way of these witnesses who are people who viewers are more likely to trust (to the extent they trust anyone in the establishment). Then when the Republicans have the impetus you can move to counter-punching. At the minute Democrats are controlling the narrative I think it would be a mistake to let that slip/or distract from it by doing the running commentary stuff - at this stage.

[Malthus]

Yeah. But, you know, getting caught isn't a defence.

Yes, I know.  Geez.  I raise a question about the Democratic media strategy and you, like Malthus, feel the need to enlighten me personally.

I understand we have a number of frustrated press secretaries here on Languish, but how about some recognition that you're missing my point?  Why isn't someone on the Democratic side delivering these catchy one liners and pithy Latin phrases to the American public?

Perhaps they are using the strategy of not interrupting an opponent when they are busy digging the hole deeper.

Mind you, that may not be a good strategy. It depends on a public able to recognize holes.