verb_to_trust wrote:He'll just say no and that will be the end of it.
This.
I feel like there needs to be a tacit agreement by all anti-Trump investigations to all take a backseat and stop doing things that will end up in the news. (I realize this is probably impossible, though.) Everything Trump-related needs to be about Ukraine because it's the best chance of actually getting something done. Anything that isn't Trump/Ukraine is a distraction right now and counterproductive, even if true and harmful and yadda yadda yadda. Stay on message.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
verb_to_trust wrote:He'll just say no and that will be the end of it.
This.
I feel like there needs to be a tacit agreement by all anti-Trump investigations to all take a backseat and stop doing things that will end up in the news. (I realize this is probably impossible, though.) Everything Trump-related needs to be about Ukraine because it's the best chance of actually getting something done. Anything that isn't Trump/Ukraine is a distraction right now and counterproductive, even if true and harmful and yadda yadda yadda. Stay on message.
I disagree. I think there’s a HUGE voting swath that regards any investigation as something beyond their control, and they want candidates to talk boilerplate issues: healthcare, environment, economy, immigration.
tragabigzanda wrote:Appellate court just issued a stay (so he doesn’t have to turn them over yet).
I’d say there’s a higher likelihood that his supporters will get sick of paying his legal fees and jump ship long before some magic tax return will make them turn against him.
do you really believe they think of it as paying his legal fees?
tragabigzanda wrote:Appellate court just issued a stay (so he doesn’t have to turn them over yet).
I’d say there’s a higher likelihood that his supporters will get sick of paying his legal fees and jump ship long before some magic tax return will make them turn against him.
do you really believe they think of it as paying his legal fees?
I think the wealthy donors certainly think of it that way; they've already got their tax cut, and probably shouldn't expect much else come 2020, once the Dems have more seats in the Senate and climate change has solidified itself as the primary issue driving the Democratic party. And then his small-dollar donors won't be enough to keep him afloat.
verb_to_trust wrote:He'll just say no and that will be the end of it.
This.
I feel like there needs to be a tacit agreement by all anti-Trump investigations to all take a backseat and stop doing things that will end up in the news. (I realize this is probably impossible, though.) Everything Trump-related needs to be about Ukraine because it's the best chance of actually getting something done. Anything that isn't Trump/Ukraine is a distraction right now and counterproductive, even if true and harmful and yadda yadda yadda. Stay on message.
I disagree. I think there’s a HUGE voting swath that regards any investigation as something beyond their control, and they want candidates to talk boilerplate issues: healthcare, environment, economy, immigration.
I don't mean electorally. I mean all the anti-Trump stuff,. Specifically, investigations, impeachment, and discussions of wrongdoing. Focus on the thing that the president has admitted and that we have proof of. Don't let Ukraine feel like just another attempt of the swamp to catch him. It should be the only thing they focus on. Bang that same drum over and over and over. Don't spread yourself too thin pointing out every single instance of suspicious or questionable or down right illegal stuff and then find yourself playing defense over allegations that aren't as credible or provable as this, which could be used to legitimize claims that this is a witch hunt, etc.
Candidates, on the other hand, should be talking about policy as much as possible. Does that make sense?
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
verb_to_trust wrote:He'll just say no and that will be the end of it.
This.
I feel like there needs to be a tacit agreement by all anti-Trump investigations to all take a backseat and stop doing things that will end up in the news. (I realize this is probably impossible, though.) Everything Trump-related needs to be about Ukraine because it's the best chance of actually getting something done. Anything that isn't Trump/Ukraine is a distraction right now and counterproductive, even if true and harmful and yadda yadda yadda. Stay on message.
I disagree. I think there’s a HUGE voting swath that regards any investigation as something beyond their control, and they want candidates to talk boilerplate issues: healthcare, environment, economy, immigration.
I don't mean electorally. I mean all the anti-Trump stuff,. Specifically, investigations, impeachment, and discussions of wrongdoing. Focus on the thing that the president has admitted and that we have proof of. Don't let Ukraine feel like just another attempt of the swamp to catch him. It should be the only thing they focus on. Bang that same drum over and over and over. Don't spread yourself too thin pointing out every single instance of suspicious or questionable or down right illegal stuff and then find yourself playing defense over allegations that aren't as credible or provable as this, which could be used to legitimize claims that this is a witch hunt, etc.
Candidates, on the other hand, should be talking about policy as much as possible. Does that make sense?
Given everything that we see going on, what about the things we don't? The next president is going to come in and see the 'for your eyes only' stuff that he screwed up and be like "how the fuck am I supposed to fix this shit on top of the rest of the stuff?"
bune wrote:Given everything that we see going on, what about the things we don't? The next president is going to come in and see the 'for your eyes only' stuff that he screwed up and be like "how the fuck am I supposed to fix this shit on top of the rest of the stuff?"
tragabigzanda wrote:Where are you seeing that he’s going to testify?
Two journalists I follow were reporting it, but it looks like they were either misinterpreting his statement or had confused his original "happy to testify" public letter for his response to being told not to come. Both have corrected.
Jesus farting Christ. You have the law and the polling at your back. Enforce a subpoena. Why would anybody comply under threat of these tepid responses?
