US Politics XVIII: the illegitimate partisan sham thread

[Irvine511]

Given how rapidly the Ukraine story changes, and how much more insane and bad for Trump it gets, I wish Nancy would hold those articles a little bit longer.

“Fuck that bitch,” Hyde wrote on March 22, 2019. (Yovanovitch was highly regarded, and one of our very top diplomats.)

The next day he texted: “Wow. Can’t believe Trumo [sic] hasn’t fired this bitch. I’ll get right in that”

Then: “She under heavy protection outside Kiev”

Unidentified [probably Lev Parnas]: “I know crazy shit”

Hyde: “My guy thinks maybe FSB..?” [FSB is Russian security]

More exchanges of news stories about removing Yovanovitch.

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “What should I do with this?

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “They are moving her tomorrow

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “The guys over they asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them”

Hyde: March 25, 2019: “Wake up Yankees man”

Hyde: March 25, 2019: “She’s talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off.”

Hyde: March 25, 2019: “She’s next to the embassy”

Hyde: March 25, 2019: “Not in the embassy”

Hyde: March 25, 2019: “Private security. Been there since Thursday”

Likely Parnas: March 25, 2019 “Interesting”

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “They know she’s a political puppet”

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “They will let me know when she’s on the move”

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “And they’ll let me know when she’s on the move”

Unidentified [probably Lev Parnas]: March 25, 2019: “Perfect”

Hyde: March 25, 2019, “I mean where if they can find out.”

Hyde: March 25, 2019: “That address I sent you checks out”

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “It’s next to the embassy”

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “They are willing to help if we/you would like a price”

Hyde, March 25, 2019: “Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money… what I was told”

Unidentified [probably Lev Parnas]: “Lol”

Hyde: March 26, 2019: “Update she will not be moved special security unit upgraded force on the compound people are already aware of the situation my contacts are asking what is the next step because they cannot keep going to check people will start to ask questions”

Hyde: March 26, 2019: “If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces”

Hyde: March 26, 2019: “From Ukrainians”

Hyde: March 27, 2019: “What’s the word bro”

Hyde: March 27, 2019: “Any good stuff?

Unidentified [probably Lev Parnas]: March 27, 2019: “Call you soon in studio.”

 

[BEAL]

I’m hoping she’s moving forward because the more evidence that comes out the worse it looks on the GOP For covering it up.

But that Rudy letter was about as smoking of a gun you could get. Yet it won’t be allowed in the senate.

Also not allowing photographs or audio recording of the handing over of articles is yet another scratch off of democracy.

Pic or impeachment didn’t happen!!!

 

[BEAL]

Given how rapidly the Ukraine story changes, and how much more insane and bad for Trump it gets, I wish Nancy would hold those articles a little bit longer.

They were going to kill her

 

[anitram]

Also

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1217265835670228993?s=19

He is looking increasingly unwell (and like he's spending too much time under a broiler while somebody bastes him like a Thanksgiving turkey). To say nothing of his mental state.

 

[Irvine511]

They were going to kill her

“Fuck that bitch” is the new “lock her up.”

The subtext is now text.

 

[Irvine511]

It never happened, Warren is a liar



Ok it happened just not the way she remembers it

It’s just the corporate democrats colluding with their corporate media shills to divide and conquer those that threaten their corporate power.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Who knew that Russian politicians had more balls than Republicans.

The jury could also potentially consider

Hey, Putin just involuntarily resigned his entire government.

 

[DaveC]

it's really cool that some of the same people who last year defended joe biden and said i was being "divisive" when i criticized his conduct towards women are now in here going after bernie sanders over some hearsay that he maybe expressed a disappointing opinion in a private meeting on whether a woman can win.

 

[Irvine511]

it's really cool that some of the same people who last year defended joe biden and said i was being "divisive" when i criticized his conduct towards women are now in here going after bernie sanders over some hearsay that he maybe expressed a disappointing opinion in a private meeting on whether a woman can win.

i think Bernie may well believe that it's difficult if not impossible for a woman to win, given the tenor and nature of many of his supporters and their overlap with Trump supporters (the ones he thinks he can win over in the general election). i'm sure he's well aware that he -- and Trump -- benefited from the misogyny that makes it difficult for many Americans to see a woman as a president.

given the evidence we have -- the 2016 election, Bernie's own "bros", the fact that there has never been a female president -- Bernie might be right. just because Bernie has put his finger on a problem with the electorate doesn't mean he approves of it. i'm sure he's sad that he doesn't believe a woman can win a presidential election. just because it's unfortunate doesn't mean it isn't true.

as for hearsay -- it's not. it's Warren's story. she was obviously there -- just because she's a woman doesn't make her story "hearsay." and given her refusal to shake his hand last night, she's clearly mad about something.

have no idea what this has to do with Biden sniffing hair or whatever.

 

[DaveC]

love the implication that i'm dismissing this as hearsay "just because she's a woman".

a person is claiming that someone said something in private and there is no physical evidence either way to prove whether that thing was actually said. that is the literal definition of hearsay. the fact that "it's warren's story" and that she's upset about something isn't evidence or proof of anything.

 

[Irvine511]

hearsay is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."

she was there.

so she's lying?

 

[DaveC]

hearsay is "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor."

she was there.

yes, you (irvine) received information from another person (warren) that a third party (sanders) said something in a meeting in which you (irvine) were not present. without any evidence that affirms whether warren's statement that "sanders said x" is true or false, to you and everyone else who was not present in that meeting, the statement "sanders said x" is hearsay.

and no, that doesn't mean i automatically think she's lying or that i don't believe her "just because she's a woman" or whatever other bullshit way you want to try to imply that i'm just being sexist.

 

[Irvine511]

yes, you (irvine) received information from another person (warren) that a third party (sanders) said something in a meeting in which you (irvine) were not present. without any evidence that affirms whether warren's statement that "sanders said x" is true or false, to you and everyone else who was not present in that meeting, the statement "sanders said x" is hearsay.



and no, that doesn't mean i automatically think she's lying or that i don't believe her "just because she's a woman" or whatever other bullshit way you want to try to paint me as just being sexist here.

Elizabeth Warren hasn't talked to me in months. she won't return my phone calls. also, her people haven't talked to me either. so they haven't told me anything about that conversation, which would be hearsay.

however, Elizabeth Warren herself did confirm to the press that Bernie Sanders doesn't think a woman can win the presidency.

After publication of this story, Warren herself backed up this account of the meeting, saying in part in a statement Monday, "I thought a woman could win; he disagreed."

I, me, am not at all relevant to this conversation. I’m not reporting it to the press. I am reading accounts and, based upon the available evidence, feel it is more likely true than not that Elizabeth Warren’s first hand account is correct.

 

[BEAL]

This might be the stupidest story of this campaign season so far.

Let it go Dems.

Getting rid of Trump shouldn't be this fucking difficult. Jesus, every damn day there's a more horrible story about this man and his administration.

Yet the news cycle is a He Said, She Said about a private conversation.

 

[DaveC]

however, Elizabeth Warren herself did confirm to the press that Bernie Sanders doesn't think a woman can win the presidency.

lol okay sure, if "she told the media it's true therefore it is true" is the road you insist on going down then feel free.

 

[anitram]

As a woman, I absolutely believe that she could (and probably would) have heard what Bernie is saying through a particular lens and came away from the conversation with a different impression than he did. It happens all the time.

I think the real story, which isn't getting told much, but which I have heard many anecdotes from corporate types with piles and piles of money that move in financial circles is that there was a concerted effort in late summer and fall to discredit Elizabeth Warren because they were scared shitless that she would be the president. They didn't believe in Joe Biden's ability to campaign well, and they wrote off. But she looked like the real deal and like she was going to take this and run with it. So there were endless stories pushed in corporate media about her M4A plan, about the alleged dishonesty of it, the wealth tax, and on and on. Then Mayor Pete stepped in and went after her hard repeating the exact same tropes (not a coincidence because his donor base are the people who had a vested interest here). So down she came in polls, Bernie had a heart attack and all was well with the world. Until he was essentially resurrected and now these people are left with the absolutely (terrifying) prospect of having Bernie win it all. And there is a LOT of buyers remorse about Warren in that group. It's karma in a way.

 

[Irvine511]

lol hearsay is a concept that teenagers who watch one episode of judge judy can easily grasp but okay sure, if "she told the media it's true therefore it is true" is the road you insist on going down then feel free.

I’m sorry you have to move to a distortion to save face, but go right ahead.

edit to add: I see you've removed your "hearsay" definition. so now i'll say, yes, i agree with your characterization that I believe Elizabeth Warren over Bernie based on what i've read in the press, because no politician has benefitted more from latent misogyny than Sanders, likely much to his disappointment.

 

[DaveC]

I’m sorry you have to move to a distortion

says the guy who implied immediately that i'm just being a dismissive misogynist.

 

[Irvine511]

I think the real story, which isn't getting told much, but which I have heard many anecdotes from corporate types with piles and piles of money that move in financial circles is that there was a concerted effort in late summer and fall to discredit Elizabeth Warren because they were scared shitless that she would be the president. They didn't believe in Joe Biden's ability to campaign well, and they wrote off. But she looked like the real deal and like she was going to take this and run with it. So there were endless stories pushed in corporate media about her M4A plan, about the alleged dishonesty of it, the wealth tax, and on and on. Then Mayor Pete stepped in and went after her hard repeating the exact same tropes (not a coincidence because his donor base are the people who had a vested interest here). So down she came in polls, Bernie had a heart attack and all was well with the world. Until he was essentially resurrected and now these people are left with the absolutely (terrifying) prospect of having Bernie win it all. And there is a LOT of buyers remorse about Warren in that group. It's karma in a way.

i agree with much of this. and i don't think it's at all surprising that there's a campaign behind a campaign -- that the centrist wing would try to take down the leftist wing, and vice versa. lord knows the GOP does the same, they just failed in their efforts to take down Trump. i don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, or some kind of original "never-MFA" conspiracy. this is politics. and you better believe that the Trump people will come at all of the candidates a million times harder than anything we've seen in this so far nicey-nice campaign.

the only disagreement i would have is that the "corporate" media has some kind of stake in M4A or not. they don't. they have an interest in controversy and drama and a horse race that will draw viewers and clicks. certainly establishment Democrats have media contacts, but what they do is entice a good, juicy story -- they don't collude on policy because it's, say, mutually beneficial to the DNC and, say, CNN. what's beneficial to CNN is ratings, and to be able to say that "we can report breaking news heard first here on CNN." the "corporate" media is certainly cosmopolitan -- they don't like racism, say, and live in highly diverse urban areas -- but there's no collective "corporate" media policy on health care, or even foreign policy.

it's just ratings.

 

[Irvine511]

says the guy who implied immediately that i'm just being a dismissive misogynist.

i'm sorry.

you said a woman's first-hand account was hearsay.

i realize now that you didn't understand the definition of hearsay.

my bad.

 

[DaveC]

edit: not worth continuing this nonsense.

 

[Irvine511]

lol imagine being this much of a smug prick when you're flat-out wrong. i'm glad i know that you aren't like this in real life.

Dude, you were flat-out wrong about hearsay. And amended your own post.

It’s fine.

 

[anitram]

the only disagreement i would have is that the "corporate" media has some kind of stake in M4A or not. they don't. they have an interest in controversy and drama and a horse race that will draw viewers and clicks.

Generally speaking, yes. That much is evident by the way we were force-fed Trump from the get go.

But that same media does get to paint a certain picture through their editorials, and even moreso the guest columnists who have very skewed views. Sure you get the obligatory disclaimer that their views are not necessarily the publication's, blah blah, but there have been many instances of agendas being pushed blatantly in this way.

And CNN goes to report the 99 articles trashing Warren day in and day out, that in itself drove a certain message that the stupid public was willing to swallow.

Barring something unexpected, this will be (yet another) old man fight, Bernie vs Biden.

 

[anitram]

Far be it for me to step in as a lawyer, but what she said definitely isn't legal hearsay. I don't know whether there is a colloquial meaning of that term that's different?

 

[DaveC]

I think the real story, which isn't getting told much, but which I have heard many anecdotes from corporate types with piles and piles of money that move in financial circles is that there was a concerted effort in late summer and fall to discredit Elizabeth Warren because they were scared shitless that she would be the president. They didn't believe in Joe Biden's ability to campaign well, and they wrote off. But she looked like the real deal and like she was going to take this and run with it. So there were endless stories pushed in corporate media about her M4A plan, about the alleged dishonesty of it, the wealth tax, and on and on.

i can confirm that this is/was even the case among canadian firms doing business in the american markets. most of the trading desks of the banks were writing these kind of stories/analyses and they were being circulated within the industry as newsletters and pieces in industry papers last year.

 

[DaveC]

Dude, you were flat-out wrong about hearsay. And amended your own post.

It’s fine.

fine, okay, anitram says it's not hearsay and i trust her expertise.

edit: the last thing i will say about this is that i recognize i overreacted - the instant jump to "just because she's a woman doesn't make her story "hearsay."" really set me off because i can't recall a single thing that i have said or done on this message board would indicate that it would be in my character to feel that way. i definitely will not be apologizing to irvine after getting that condescending fake-apology up there, but i am at least adult enough to admit for the record that i was wrong.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

A week before Germany, France and Britain accused Iran of breaching the 2015 nuclear deal, the Trump administration privately threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on European automobiles if they didn’t, according to U.S. and European officials.

The U.S. effort to coerce European foreign policy through tariffs represents a new level of hardball tactics with America’s oldest allies and could result in the reimposition of sanctions against Iran.

.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Also not hearsay - the president's lawyer and cronies were tracking an American ambassador and discussing a hit, and the president likely brought it up in his perfect phone call (although that last part might be hearsay, smug or otherwise, I can never be totally sure)

 

[anitram]

I guess because the economy is good people can't be bothered to hit the streets?

You literally have a conspiracy to probably have a high ranking official murdered and it's like "nothing to see, just another nothingburger here!"

 

[Irvine511]

Barring something unexpected, this will be (yet another) old man fight, Bernie vs Biden.

agreed. it's depressing.

i didn't watch last night, as i had a class, but i caught the wrap-up and have been reading this morning, and, on paper and off television, if our metric is "who can win a general in the only three states that matter," the best candidate really seems to be Klobuchar.

“We are going to have over a million openings for home health-care workers that we don’t know how to fill in the next ten years. We are going to have open 100,000 jobs for nursing assistants. We — as my union friends know — we’re going to have over 70,000 openings for electricians. We’re not going to have a shortage of MBAs.”

this is correct and feels indicative of the pragmatism the center of the electorate wants.