Said Donald Trump at his Minneapolis rally last night, just a few minutes after he made up a fake conversation:
Months earlier, Peter Strzok, remember, he and his lover, Lisa Page. What a group. “She’s going to win 10 million to one. She’s going to win. I’m telling you, Peter. I’m telling you, Peter, she’s going to win. Peter. Oh, I love you so much. I love you, Peter.”I've already written — approvingly — of Trump's "I love you, Lisa" routine, but I want to ask when is it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people? Obviously, it's comedy, but it's comedy that's based on something that happened in real life, something that we may not remember exactly, and the comic exaggeration may distort memories of what really happened.
“I love you too, Lisa. Lisa, I love you. Lisa, Lisa, oh God, I love you, Lisa. And if she doesn’t win, Lisa, we’ve got an insurance policy, Lisa. We’ll get that son of a bitch out. We got an insurance policy.”
And we’re living through the insurance policy. That’s what it is. The phony Russia hoax. "Lisa, I love you.”
Here's my post from last week about Schiff's satirical paraphrase of Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President. Schiff — you may remember — said:
"I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good, I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand, lots of it, on this and on that...."The real-life statement by Trump was:
"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me."Nothing about asking that "dirt" be "made up." And there's a firm grounding in specific facts that were well-supported by Joe Biden's own public bragging. The more I go back to Trump's original statement, the more it seems like something a President ought to do. If you look only at Schiff's comic restatement, you can't see any of the basis for thinking what Trump did was acceptable! It sounds more like Trump wanted the President of Ukraine to put together something like the Steele dossier.
If Trump wants to take Schiff and Pelosi to task for their self-serving paraphrase of him, shouldn't he be careful about creating a dialogue like his highly amusing Page-and-Strzok shtick?
One answer is that Schiff was speaking in Congress, in his role as chair of the House Intelligence Committee, while Trump was speaking a political campaign rally. But if you think the line should be drawn there, what motivated you — neutral principles of line-drawing or a desire to find Trump right and Schiff wrong?
Posts
149 comments:
"but I want to ask when it it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people?”
When you are rubbing their nose in their own hypocrisy.
Do you think time and place matter? A congressional hearing would seem to demand a higher standard of fidelity to facts and truth than a campaign rally ... I certainly take some venues more seriously than others.
If Trump wants to take Schiff and Pelosi to task for their self-serving paraphrase of him, shouldn't he be careful about creating a dialogue like his highly amusing Page-and-Strzok shtick?
It is perfect because now they can call him a liar and print/broadcast the actual text of the messages to prove it.
That way, show that he is right and the reality is even worse than his mocking.
An important difference between what Trump and Schiff did is that Trump's exaggeration was based on words that were really said (or texted) and Schiff's was completely fabricated and contrary to the facts of Trump's phone call. Also, Trump is challenging the legitimacy of the effort to impeach him by, in part, establishing that it is a pre-planned attack that predates his election.
Trump said...
A fake conversation that never happened, and [Schiff] delivered it to the United States Congress and the American people. It was a total fraud.
Isn't that difference? Schiff's wasn't a paraphrase during a campaign speech.
Schiff read his prepared narrative on the record during a convened hearing as chairman of the House Committee on Intelligence.
I would imagine there is a difference in kind between rhetoric at a rally and things being READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
When Trump did his comedy routine: A) he channeled his John Stewart Daily Show routine and B) The facts were out there prior to his statement so everyone could be clear is was chocked full of truthyness.
Shiff either didn’t know what was in the transcript or shouldn’t have know but did - either way, he presented his statements of fact in an impeachment proceeding. Can you imagining a prosecutor making this opening statement to the jury where he wildly misquotes the defendant and then the defendant proves the prosecutor lied. The case would be dismissed and the prosecutor sanctioned.
The difference between Trump and Schiff making up a satirical convo is that Trump’s wasn’t a false accusation of a crime.
I love you Lisa ! link to texts
AA: "...but I want to ask when it it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people?"
This is where erudite lawyers get in trouble -- ignoring the context.
At a campaign rally, everyone knows its a campaign rally, and a politician can say anything he wants to try to get elected. And, he also knows that if he steps over the line, the press and his opponent will hammer him.
In contrast, Schiff is actively trying impeach the President on bogus charges. He orchestrated a phony "whistleblower" report of a second-hand "report" of a CIA slacker/Biden flunky who claimed he heard Trump say a bunch of impeachable stuff to the Ukraine President on the phone.
Schiff then lied about the what was said in the phone call, but didn't anticipate Trump would release the transcript refuting his double-hearsay, false nonsense.
In short, Trump was having fun, while Schiff was maliciously trying to injure someone (Trump).
"...but I want to ask when it it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people?"
Well, I would think that if the setting is a congressional hearing investigating whether to impeach the president, that might be one indicator that you shouldn't use made up quotes.
Still, Trump shouldn’t have made that up, if he wanted to convince anyone on the other side. We seem to be past that kind of thing.
But if you think the line should be drawn there, what motivated you — neutral principles of line-drawing or a desire to find Trump right and Schiff wrong?
I can only say that I honestly try to look at these sorts of things objectively as I can. I'm fully aware of my own biases. There's things that I want to happen, things that I hope that are true, and things that I hope aren't true.
Parsing something Trump has said is often an excercise in wish fulfillment for either side because so much of what he says is open to a great deal of interpretation. Obviously people take him literally far too much.
Schiff was doing a parody, but nobody realized it.
Trump was doing a parody and everybody realized it.
Trump aims to throw sand in the media gears. Schiff aims at emotional women, the same women the media aim at.
It's an emotional woman problem, not a line drawing problem.
Anyone can say whatever they like, and anyone can judge in any way they like. Nothing we deplorables say will prevent the Schiffs of the world to spout their schiff.
Neutral principles, my a**. In the culture war, neutrality is short-sighted tinidity.
I myself, of course, adhere to the objectively neutral principle that paraphrase and parody are OK if they accentuate the essential truth of the original. Which Trump did, but Schiff didn't.
Leaving aside the obvious difference in motivations between Trump's fake conversation and Schiff's, the major difference is Trump succeeded in being funny.
Trump was rallying his supporters using comedy. It wasn't a formal congressional hearing.
Strozk - er, I mean Schitt (same guy, right?) was speaking inside the walls of Congress.
Kinda different.
@Althouse, IIRC that's what little Peter Strzok really did text to Lisa Page, minus an ellipsis or two.
I suspect Schiff got the idea of his Trump rift from watching video of Trump rallies.
I think we can all agree that the only principle that matters is whether the person in question has a D or an R following his name.
when it it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people?
For a lot of folks, (on both sides of the political aisle) it is perfectly ok when your own side does it. He is only "kidding" & "having fun". When those other people behave as such, it is bad & #sad. Perhaps even treasonous.
The regular common folks squabble among themselves about who is just kidding and who is a traitor, while Donald & Nancy and all the other elites at the top o' the heap laugh at us.
Divide&conquer - working as intended.
Does this standard apply to the Democrat debates too?
Schiff made a travesty out of the President asking for help in investigating a confessed crime of the Biden Family'
Trump made a travesty out of Strock confessing to the highest Crime and Misdemeanor known to the law: planning a Regime Regicide. Guy Fawkes got infamous for doing just that and bragging,"... that he had planned to blow you Scotch beggars back to your mountains."
Fawkes then was put on the rack until he gave up the rest of the 7 Catholic plotters who were all condemned for High treason and sentenced to be drawn backwards by a horse and put to death half way between heaven and earth, and their genitals cut off and burned before their eyes, and their hearts and bowels removed, and then beheaded and the parts of their bodies displayed so they might become prey for the fowls of the air.
No wonder the Coup d'etat plotters are in a panic in DC and going after Giuliani with all they got. Giuliani is the drug sniffing dog of corruption.
"The more I go back to Trump's original statement, the more it seems like something a President ought to do."
Of course. So, Althouse, have the Dems gone too far this time? Or are you still "neutral"?
"...just a few minutes after he made up a fake conversation..."
He's more interested in truth than facts.
That's a distinction that many Democrats embrace, so why not.
I do have some doubt as to whether the minutes are actually word perfect, not because of the words-per-minute or anything like that, but because the purpose of minutes is not to record events; it is to protect people. But against that, I have to measure the certainty that if an American civil servant had the opportunity to screw Trump over by making the minutes seem worse than they actually were, 9 out of 10 of them would take it, so I infer there probably wasn't anything worse than the minutes already reflect.
My head is spinning. But my rationalization for myself is that it takes a Trump to unmask and lay bare all that is rotten in our political and media class. He will walk through fire to 'punch' a Schiff in the mouth (figuratively, not literally- yet). He does not care that the fire burns him. He seems to heal up fine and apparently has a wall around his ego the size of Trump Towers.
So Trump can talk away. I've tried, but cannot sit through one of his speeches, or look at the crowd applaud wildly on cue. Even with all that I cannot stomach, I do appreciate that he's taking the flak for me/us to get into the muck and wrangle with those we could not touch on our own. He's doing the necessary dirty work to give us a chance at surviving as a free people.
Can't quite figure out if you're being disingenuous or if you've just jumped right in to obtuseness, Professor.
When this is ALL they have!!! Bahaha.....can't wait for the dominoes to fall!!! This is going to be EPIC!!!
Trump is the best stand-up comic working today. He has the perfect villains in Congress and the Press. And political speech (famously including commercials) need not be factual or true to be protected. ALL political speech is protected. Congressional proceedings, where witnesses are subject to perjury, should be free of political speech, and comedy has no place in Committee. Apples and oranges.
readering: "I suspect Schiff got the idea of his Trump rift from watching video of Trump rallies."
LOL
Hey, remember that time at the Trump rally where Trump read a fictitious statement into the congressional record as a means to remove Schiff from office?
But again, in terms readering might relate to and understand, Trump only made fun of the FBI lovebird hoax artists because Hitler invaded the fake investigation into the hoax frameup from the West.
Really, Professor?
Trump took direct quotes from "the lovers", and put them together more closely. He didn't take anything out of context, didn't twist their meaning. He did a compressed, but honest, reading of their texts.
None of that applies to what Schiff did
"...but I want to ask when it it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people?"
___________________
Until the real people object and demand to be heard - then they should get a hearing.
So Trump took the opportunity and made himself heard
Whether they get a hearing or not and who controls / determines that is the issue.
"Said Donald Trump at his Minneapolis rally last night, just a few minutes after he made up a fake conversation:"
Trump's fake conversation wasn't entered into the congressional record. It was said at a rally. Big difference.
Still, Trump shouldn’t have made that up, if he wanted to convince anyone on the other side. We seem to be past that kind of thing.
You're kidding, right ? Convince anyone on the other side ?
You've got to be kidding.
Look at the texts.
Where is the line?
If you say you’re prosecuting someone for high crimes and misdemeanors which would deprive the people of their chosen representative, you should not be manufacturing the “evidence”.
your comment is akin to saying:
We arrest people when they kill policeman but don't arrest policeman when they kill dangerous criminals. We give medals to our Soldiers who kill the Enemy, and put the Enemy in POW camps. Where's the consistency? Why isn't it wrong?
Obviously, context. Trump is doing comic exaggeration at a Campaign rally about two low life FBI agents who tried a "silent coup" against him. Schiff WAS NOT doing a comedy routine. He pretended during a Congressional Committee Meeting - on TV - to read from the Trump- Ukraine Call Transcript. He LATER said it was parody, but he didn't say that at the time, and only said it was Parody AFTER a Republican objected, two hours later. You would have had no idea watching on TV, that Schiff was making it up. And he wasn't trying to be COMIC - that's a lie. And is their want, the D's are now acting as if Schiff's lies/parody of Trump was the truth.
And Schiff was trying to lie about the POTUS and damage him politically. How is Trump damaging Page/Stork?
"Said Donald Trump at his Minneapolis rally last night, just a few minutes after he made up a fake conversation..."
As with every charge of Trump speaking inappropriately, he is never the first one to swing.
He's always counter punching, and never passes up the opportunity. It reminds me of women who physically attack men confident that the men will not defend themselves. Some men do, and they don't get attack a second time, but Dems are even dumber than a woman who physically attacks a man.
Char Char Binks said...
Still, Trump shouldn’t have made that up, if he wanted to convince anyone on the other side. We seem to be past that kind of thing.
What did Trump "make up"? Which words from his spiel did not come from the texts? Which words did come from the texts, but were quoted out of context, or otherwise abused to give an impression that is clearly contradictory to their intended meaning?
I'm asking in all honesty. If there's anything there where Trump did lie, I'd like to know it. But by "lie" I mean "violated one of the above conditions."
If you think there's a "condition of honesty" that I missed, feel free to make the case. But "there should be ellipses between the words" only counts if the meaning was changed
The difference between statements made to Congress vs. a campaign rally matters as to degree of outrageousness but is not decisive as to permissible-or-not. The decisive factor is, How obvious is the parody? That is a matter of judgment (just like in the Babylon Bee vs. Snopes controversy Althouse previously covered on this blog). In my own judgment, there is a vast difference in obviousness between Schiff's fake statements and Trump's. But your judgment may vary.
"AA: "...but I want to ask when it it okay to make up quotes and put them in the mouths of real people?"
I'm sure that one place it is not is in a congressional hearing listening to testimony. If there is any place it's not OK, that would definitely be one.
Trump's paraphrase of the particular Strzok/Page text thread isn't inaccurate in any meaningful way other than the lovey-dovey language- that really is the only part of the text thread that Trump even exaggerates. The rest of it- the thought that Trump couldn't win the election and that the investigation was an insurance policy against it is right there in the text themselves.
“Something a President ought to do”. Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do. Wow Ann. I hope it gets you more Amazon $ to grovel to your base.
And lets be completely clear here because nearly everyone is missing a fact- Trump released the transcript before Schiff read his "satire", not after. Schiff's "satire" was based on the complaint, not the phone call itself.
so that kerfluffle yesterday at kennedy airport, involved an legal complaint filed by lois lerner's boss, trevor potters campaign law center, where the two men admitted they donated to trump in 2016, and planned to do so in 2018, that they were seeking contacts with the chief rabbi of kiev, that's the non Russian end of Ukraine,
The Strock/Page text messages have been disclosed, and indeed made into a riveting drama, so Trump's parody of them was understood as just that. Schiff presented his version of the phone call at a time when the actual call had not been disclosed. It's pretty clear the Schiff version was set up well in advance, along with a campaign to support it as factual (see Pelosi's endorsement).
There is probably an important difference between making up a conversation at a political rally and making up a conversation to facilitate impeaching the President at a congressional committee hearing, don’tcha think?
I suspect Schiff got the idea of his Trump rift from watching video of Trump rallies.
Except that Schiff has no discernible sense of humor. He is a dedicated neo-Marxist elitist and one of the folks you look up to.
I would imagine there is a difference in kind between rhetoric at a rally and things being READ INTO THE CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
This is it for me too. If you want us to take your inquisition seriously there shouldn't be mocking or parody...
I think there's a line for the campaign rally stuff, too. It's okay to mock or exaggerate but no making shit up. I'm pretty neutral on that as I've been critical of others for doing that for both sides. It's dangerous and there's too much legit material to work with without having to make it up.
I got that from a breitbart piece and started looking from there, but the ap does very good covering with pillows,
The Strock/Page text messages have been disclosed, and indeed made into a riveting drama, so Trump's parody of them was understood as just that. Schiff presented his version of the phone call at a time when the actual call had not been disclosed. It's pretty clear the Schiff version was set up well in advance, along with a campaign to support it as factual (see Pelosi's endorsement).
Bears repeating.
The transcript was released in the hours before the hearing with the Schiff "satire", DeVere. Pelosi opened her "impeachment inquiry" the day before the transcript was released. I think that is what is confusing people.
this is a 'travesty of two mockeries of a sham' I don't think you can take it seriously, with a secret witness right out of the gong show, with moonlighting alec leamas types trading in rumor, which becomes fisa material,
steve uhr: "“Something a President ought to do”. Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do."
Provide the explicit text from the Trump/Ukraine call where Trump asked for "dirt".
Don't worry, we all already know you are as big a liar as Field Marshall Freder.
"Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do.”
That was a hell of a leap from the actual evidence. In fact it contradicts all of the evidence that we have on that subject. But you go girl!
Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do.
How about a candidate like Hillary, steve? Oh, sorry. Those are questions never to be asked.
That’s right drago. He was asking for stuff that would show that Biden was an upstanding person. Give me a break drago
Pussies attacking them when they come out and are sure to have no weapons.
DeVere - and Meade - check.
One is by the committee chairman opening ACTUAL impeachment on the congressional record. The other is typical red meat politicking and only someone wanting to would see trumps act as anything but.
But Schiff doesn’t do acts, all he does is claim for 2.5 years that HE has proof of Russian collusion, but now he’s doing an act. It doesn’t pass the smell test.
steve uhr: "That’s right drago. He was asking for stuff that would show that Biden was an upstanding person. Give me a break drago"
You don't get a break liar.
You get called a liar for lying.
So keep on lying...liar.
""Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do.”
You do know that the DNC did just that, and it bore fruit in the form of a New York Times article ripped from the pages of Ukrainian intelligence, right? Manafort sits in prison due to pressure from Demcrats for dirt on Trump and Manafort.
Secret Ledger in Ukraine Lists Cash for Donald Trump’s Campaign Chief
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/15/us/politics/paul-manafort-ukraine-donald-trump.html
This is the kind of stuff that makes you look so foolish Steve, and you are probably having the opposite effect on opinion than you intend, unless maybe you are a false flag poser here to make anti-Trumpers look bad...
"He was asking for stuff that would show that Biden was an upstanding person”
You show me where he asked for anything other than help getting to the bottom of interference that came from the Ukraine in 2016, and noted that what Biden had himself bragged about.
Show me how they were pressured to create dirt. The only “created” dirt. we have seen so far is the Steel 'dossier.’
There is no need to dig for dirt on Biden, it’s public record.
@ Drago responding to Uhr Provide the explicit text from the Trump/Ukraine call where Trump asked for "dirt".
Yes please.
I'd like the left to produce the ACTUAL QUOTE where Trump says he want's "DIRT on Biden."
What Trump did ask for - was the crowd-strike stuff - and info on the genesis of the Russian investigation.
I though the left were concerned about that as well?
I think the reference was to the collusion between officials in the counter intel department who were engaging in a pretense of a relationship, the female official, btw botched the extradition of a figure, who seem to have much support in Europe, in dimitro firtash, the subject of the shokin deposition,
Joe Biden could publicly and proudly declare his Ukrainian extortion tactics on video and the Steve Uhr's of the world still wouldn't believe it!
What Adam Schiff did is perfectly okay as long as we agree we needn't take Congress seriously.
Michael. As you should know since I have said it many times. I’m not a fan of Clinton. Did not vote for her. Believe she prob engaged in criminal conduct. One thing I liked about trump was his plan to investigate her more closely. Comey’s Exoneration left a bad taste in my mouth since it wasn’t his call to make. But that was another lie.
But hey, Trump is the president. Whatever stupid thing Schiff did doesn’t get trump off the hook. Same for Hillary.
'cry havoc and let loose the dogs of war' he was actually quite civil compared to all the carp he has to put up with,
I think some important considerations are,
1. Are you trying to fool people about what was actually said
2. Are you trying to convince people to take action based on what you just said
3. How fair is the paraphrase
I think Trump does well on all points. Schiff not so much. I think it was clear Schiff was paraphrasing and mocking, so he is okay on point 1. Not on point 2, since no one had the actual transcript at that point, and it was not expected. I think he clearly fails on 3 as well.
That’s right drago. He was asking for stuff that would show that Biden was an upstanding person. Give me a break drago
This amounts to an admission that Biden is obviously guilty of something. Trump was just asking that Biden be looked into, not saying what should be found. Anyway the important ask on that call was about Crowdstrike, not Hunter Biden. But yeah, Trump was just asking, very clearly, for an investigation. If you're convinced that means he was asking for dirt, it's because dirt is plainly there.
But Schiff doesn’t do acts, all he does is claim for 2.5 years that HE has proof of Russian collusion
Applying Cecile's scalpel we can conclude that Obama et al have ulterior motives to justify their multitrimester spying, collusion, obstruction, journolism, witch hunts and warlock judgments, and other diversionary adventurism.
If you REALLY can't see the difference your funny/sarcasm/reality bone is dislocated.
Plus:
There is an expression that if you say, "I fully believein XXXX, but....", everything after the "but" is likely bull shit.
Here's today's corollary:
When you say, "I think we can all agree...." everything that follows is likely bull shit.
FBI lovebirds the movie starting Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tCutKd11kjg
No, Steve Uhr, you give us a break. Illegal and unethical business practices are not “dirt”. They’re illegal and unethical business practices.
The more I think about it, the more I think the key point is that Schiff was presenting a version no one could check. Trump knows we can look up the Strzok texts. Schiff knew we could NOT check his paraphrase. He is presenting his version in lieu of the actual words not in addition .
"Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do. "
He asked for help investigating something that has a great deal of evidence (including Biden's own words), that a Vice President of the United States abused his power for personal gain. What exactly allows Biden to avoid such an investigation? You just have to run for President and you are immune on all past offenses? No wonder Hillary and Biden keep running despite being perennial losers. If it looks like Biden actually did what he says he did, what basis is there for the President (Chief of the Executive Branch) to avoid investigating and asking for help with it? That would be obstruction. The Ukranians say they were not threatened by Trump with losing American support; that what Biden did, according to himself.
Rudy Giuliani is the proof that Trump wanted Ukraine to make up dirt on the Bidens. But Schiff never said that Trump said that, he said it was the "essence" of what Trump was trying to communicate to Ukraine. If you look at the opening part of the transcript of Schiff's remarks, you'll find that it doesn't say what Trump wants you to think it says.
'Lisa, I love you' makes Strzok-Page more relatable.
Or rather would, if only we didn't watch Strzok with all his weirdness and inflated ego doing the testimony. People with such ego usually get recruited by foreign intelligence services, escaping the unbearable boredom of a loyal civil service.
Without 'Lisa, I love you' they're just cynical, inflated-ego spook wannabes, who also recreationally f*ck.
Can prosecutors or investigators make up quotes to railroad the accused in a court of law?
The Congress which uses its power to investigate and impeach (prosecute) the Chief Executive is a court of law. Made up quotes are lies, liars should be held to account: how about prosecuted for Obstruction of Justice?
A political rally is a road show, a commercial. Whoever believes the claims in a commercial is true needs to have ze's head examined.
Yesterday
President Trump talked about Peter Strzok and Lisa Page
Next Friday
Inspector General Horowitz will release his report about the FISA process that targeted Trump's campaign staff in 2016.
-----
Two events that probably are related.
You said it yourself: when it's humorous, in the service of a story.
Put it another way: in literature, there is a dividing line concerning memoirs. Generally, humorists get away with a lot more fiction than people like James Frey. In fact, it's supposed to be a no-no if a memoirist makes up stuff.
Not to say that memoirists don't make up stuff. It turns out a lot of Steinbeck's "Travels with Charley" was faked.
And a year or two back, David Sedaris was criticized for making up portions of his memoirs (I think the original "Santaland Diaries.")
But no one reads Mark Twain's travel memoirs and think he's not exaggerating for comic effect.
You missed the best part of the speech. The poignant part of the speech where Trump spoke about how hard it is to write the letters to parents of deceased soldiers and his verbal dramatization of the too routine events at Dover AFB. The crowd grew silent and he was pretty emotional. Several people in the background teared up during this discussion. People watching from home too, if I represent some amount of the viewers.
One key difference is Trump made up the details but was true to the facts, they actually used the words "insurance policy." Schiff made the whole thing up. None of it was true beyond that the two people he made up the story about did once speak on the phone.
Can prosecutors or investigators make up quotes to railroad the accused in a court of law? Can prosecutors or investigators make up quotes to railroad the accused in a court of law?
According to an actual case in California, Kamala Harris answers in the affirmative.
"Blogger Left Bank of the Charles said...
Rudy Giuliani is the proof that Trump wanted Ukraine to make up dirt on the Bidens.”
Rudy Giuliani is trying to get to the bottom of election interference that came out of the Ukraine. Interference that was far mor consequential than a few Facebook ads intended to slightly discomfit incoming President Hillary. You are just peddling “made up dirt” on Giuliani.
BTW, why does Hillary’s lawyer get to talk to Putin spies to make up dirt on Trump, which is what is known to have happened, but Trump is not allowed to defend himself by gathering evidence, from, you know, Schiff’s ongoing investigation into the Russian hoax, well, Schiff doesn’t think it’s a hoax.
The Democrats’ case here is like an illusion that requires you to hold your hands over your eyes while it is set up, and if you try to examine it, your hand gets slapped.
Left Bank of the Charles: "Rudy Giuliani is the proof that Trump wanted Ukraine to make up dirt on the Bidens."
LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Dems prior to 2 months ago: We must get to the bottom of what happened in 2016!!
Dems after 2 months ago: We must not look closely at what happened in 2016!!
Just keep your hoax "whistleblowers" in hiding along with Hunter Biden dems. It's all going to work out great for you.
what an evil, evil man, this is presumably the two bothan spies, benefactor
Fuks is the co-organizer of the construction of the memorial complex "Babi Yar" (the project worth of the complex is estimated at US$50–100 million, and it is planned to be completed it in 2021, on the 80th anniversary of the tragedy of Babi Yar).[21] On March 19, 2017, the Supervisory Board of the Memorial Center for the Holocaust "Babi Yar" was established, and included Pavel Fuks, the Mayor of Kiev Vitali Klitschko and his brother, the professional boxer Wladimir Klitschko, the shareholders of the consortium "Alfa Group" Mikhail Fridman and German Khan and others.[22][23] The project's development fund was created with the help of consultants from the American big-four accounting firm "Ernst & Young".[24] According to Fuks, the structure of the memorial will include educational programs, a research center and a museum.[24]
For 3 straight years and continuing every single day every single lefty/dem/LLR-lefty in sight has gleefully lies that Trump is a treasonous traitor.
So, you know, lets spend lots and lots of time quibbling about Trump's Strzok/Page joking (based in fact from the love birds very own tweets) at a campaign rally...
It’s all fun and games until a Democrat gets hurt.
Steve Uhr wrote:
"Comey’s Exoneration left a bad taste in my mouth since it wasn’t his call to make."
Really? What I thought was that you felt Comey's decision was fully justified (you even quoted the DoJ manual in support of it). I don't remember you ever saying it was wrong, or even that Comey was wrong to make the decision in the first place.
Schiff has to keep Trump’s trial secret because he knows that even the half-wit Republicans in Congress could shred him as easily as we just did Steve Uhr.
It’s a rock solid case that can’t stand up to the light of day! Imagine if these hearings were televised and Republicans had the same rights that the Democrats had during the Clinton impeachment? Schiff would be a national laughingstock.
Whether is is factual or not, it is still "dirt" I didn't say he told Ukraine to make it up, though I'm sure he would not care if they did.
Question -- as romney said, is it just a coincidence that the only individuals he asked them to investigate is Biden? Is that the only corruption that has occurred in Ukraine in the past few years. If Biden engaged in corruption it would violate US law. Is DOJ investigating? If not, why not. If they are, DOJ should have asked Ukraine for assistance. Trump is not the AG. If he were, all investigations involving his conduct and the conduct of his buds would be closed tomorrow.
Also, Trump told the U president that Barr would be calling. According to Barr, Trump never talked to Barr about it. Why not?
You guys can continue to defend the indefensible "perfect" call. You are not going to convince fair minded people who didn't drink the Koolaid. Talking to each other isn't gong to help Trump win in 2020.
Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do.
Why do you keep repeating things that clearly didn't happen?
Blogger steve uhr said...
“Something a President ought to do”. Ask a foreign country that’s needs US support for survival for dirt on a political opponent is something a president ought to do. Wow Ann. I hope it gets you more Amazon $ to grovel to your base.
Really? So it's a violation of ethics for a US President to ask a leader of a foreign country to help catch US criminals?
Your basis for claiming that is?
The Obama Admin, which included Biden, asked the UK and Australia to help get dirt on the Trump campaign? Do we need to begin judicial actions against Obama, and Biden, for that? How about everyone else involved (like Comey)? How about people who used the fruit of those poisonous requests (like the entire Mueller Special Counsel team)?
Or is the "rule" that you can't do that, when it would hurt a Democrat?
Schiff was using his made-up quote to justify impeaching the President.
Trump was using his made-up quote to make fun of Strok.
You're right, Professor -- those two things are EXACTLY the same.
Rudy Giuliani is the proof that Trump wanted Ukraine to make up dirt on the Bidens. - left bank
Did Giuliani also ask Ukraine to make up Joe Biden bragging about it, too?
I swear. You people are insane. Certifiably insane.
JAORE said...
There is an expression that if you say, "I fully believein XXXX, but....", everything after the "but" is likely bull shit.
You got that backwards, Jaore
When you say "I fully support X but ...", the claim that you fully support X is the lie.
It's the things after the "but" that are your true beliefs
What Schiff did was really wrong. Not only will his “parody” go into the Congressional Record, his later statement to the press that he was only attempting a parody will NOT be in the Congressional Record. A hundred years from now, when some historian is researching these events, he will see what is in the Congressional Record.
"Question -- as romney said, is it just a coincidence that the only individuals he asked them to investigate is Biden?”
No, Biden was in the news bragging about pressuring the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor investigating the business that had hired Biden’s son, Kerry’s stepson and ROMNEY’s son pretty much to ward off any investigation into the fact that the owner had engaged in massive self dealing while he was in the government.
'Whether is is factual or not, it is still "dirt” ‘
Obviously, as I linked above to the New York. Times, the Ukraine was involved in election interference to help Hillary. Was that wrong? Should it be investigated? Or should we never look into that?
Should Trump be the subject of an impeachment probe regarding foreign interference in elections and not be allowed to gather evidence in his own defense? Ukraine had a much larger effect on the election than Russia.
"Or is the "rule" that you can't do that, when it would hurt a Democrat?”
It’s all fun and games until a Democrat gets hurt!
“Schiff was doing a parody, but nobody realized it.”
I did.
“You missed the best part of the speech”
No, I watched the entire thing.
I agree that he did that part very well.
It was all very good.
"I didn't say he told Ukraine to make it up, though” - steve uhr
"Rudy Giuliani is the proof that Trump wanted Ukraine to make up dirt on the Bidens." - left bank
I apologize for the confusion.
Obviously it was parody, but why should we give Schiff any quarter when he is a proven liar? His credibility has been impeached.
The points he makes during his parody would not withstand a disintrested fact check. Am I dreaming, or was it Althous who was defending the Snopes factchecks of the Babylon Bee?
Not Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson -- too white and boring. I'm thinking Peter Dinklage and Grace Jones.
"Rudy Giuliani is the proof that Trump wanted Ukraine to make up dirt on the Bidens." - left bank
Obviously. Because when Democrats did it with their law firm, Fusion GPS, those were the rules. It’s impossible that the Republicans aren’t just as sleazy as we are! Maybe Trump is too new to the game to understand the rules. Why aren’t his kids on boards across the world? You know, like Romney’s and Pelosi’s kids!
”Schiff was doing a parody, but nobody realized it.”
I did.
Except that he wasn’t doing a parody. He was reading from a script calculated to set up a false narrative in order to pervert justice. “Parody” is to soft a word for what he did.
You guys can continue to defend the indefensible "perfect" call. You are not going to convince fair minded people who didn't drink the Koolaid. Talking to each other isn't gong to help Trump win in 2020.
No, rallies like that last night will do it. Idiots like you parrot talking points provided for you instead of thinking.
You really sound dumber and dumber as this goes on.
steve uhr: "Whether is is factual or not, it is still "dirt" I didn't say he told Ukraine to make it up, though I'm sure he would not care if they did."
LOL
And Uhr wonders why he is considered a joke.
Too funny, though I must admit the LAST thing I want the dems to do at this point is come to their senses.
So I am all for Uhr and Pelosi and Schiff and all the rest to continue their transparent lying. Remember lefties, you are just 658 lies away from Total Victory!!
Keep 'em coming!
MountainMan: "A hundred years from now, when some historian is researching these events, he will see what is in the Congressional Record."
Indeed.
A future lefty/Naomi Wolf will be writing a future "Outrages"-type take on this era and EVERY premise will be wrong wrong wrong and there is no guarantee a british radio host will be around to call "BS" in real time to expose the lies and ignorant assumptions.
The details of the Strozk-Page affair are of little to no concern to the nation. The details of Trump's call are of great concern to the nation. That's the difference.
Steve Uhr: "You guys can continue to defend the indefensible "perfect" call. You are not going to convince fair minded people who didn't drink the Koolaid. Talking to each other isn't gong to help Trump win in 2020."
LOLOLOLOL
The Bubble People speak!!
Discuss.
Not Crazy:
"This legal battle has to be seen to be believed. Attorney Steven Uhr’s lawsuit alleging a huge nationwide antitrust conspiracy to eliminate “Happy Hour” drink specials by the “hospitality industry” under cover of public health efforts of the University of Minnesota and several other large educational institutions gets tossed out of court. U.S. District Court Judge Patrick J. Schiltz (D. Minn.) stopped short of sanctioning Uhr, which two defendants had sought.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwVkb6p7OhGiM2E0NGQ2Y2ItN2UxOC00MmEyLTg0NTItMDc0YjkzMGRhODc1/view
Mr. Majestyk: "The details of the Strozk-Page affair are of little to no concern to the nation."
The details of the Strozk-Page effort to assist in framing a domestic opposition candidate and President-Elect and President and abuse the power of govt to target republicans for judicial warfare against them and their families will probably be of some real concern to the nation.
The discussion of the affair helps to draw attention to that and Trump should use it often.
"The details of the Strozk-Page affair are of little to no concern to the nation.”
It’s of no concern that the FBI started an investigation into a presidential candidate based on “evidence” that was cooked up by the other presidential candidate? Really?
"The details of Trump's call are of great concern to the nation.”
So Trump is not allowed to defend himself from an “impeachment probe” that was underway at the time based on the above baseless smears by collecting factual information? He is not allowed to gather exculpatory evidence?
"You are not going to convince fair minded people who didn't drink the Koolaid.”
LOL! The purple stained lips of the Kool Aide drinker move!
That’s what you call a “literary allusion.”
How much Kool Aide exactly do you have to drink to overlook Schiff’s proven lies? You know what they call it when a witness is proven to be a liar? They say he has been “impeached.” You can Google it.
Schiff lied to cover the fact that he broke his committee’s own rules so that he didn’t have to inform the Republican members while they polished the turd that was this “whistleblower” report that looks to have come from a Biden camp follower? Only a Kool Aide drinker could say that was of no consequence.
it's like that episode on the fourth season of Babylon 5, when pundits are reviewing Sheridan's tenure of the interstellar alliance, a hundred years in the future,
Also, Trump told the U president that Barr would be calling. According to Barr, Trump never talked to Barr about it. Why not?
I guess everyone else took aim at the really inane talking points that Steve posted, so I am left with this one.
OK Steve. Is it possible that Trump PLANNED to ask Barr to look into it and either forget , put it off or decided against it?
Is that an impeachable offense?
it appears the leaker is eric ciamerella, who was with the state department under jake Sullivan, where he came up in the Clinton emails, if memory serves, Stephen McIntyre has the details,
some details here:
https://twitter.com/CarrollQuigley1/status/1182542682641633281
and further elaboration here:
https://4liberty.org.uk/2018/04/15/trumps-reshuffle-the-mcmaster-chronicles-part-2/
it would appear so:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1182481078159851520.html
Jim at: "I swear. You people are insane. Certifiably insane."
They're not insane at all. They're just infinitely corrupt, and attempting to gaslight us. Here, let me show you it.
steve uhr: "Also, Trump told the U president that Barr would be calling. According to Barr, Trump never talked to Barr about it. Why not?"
This is fucking absurd. Think about it. Trump wants the following events to happen in this order:
1) Trump tells the Ukranian President to expect a call from Barr.
2) Barr then calls the Ukrainian President.
steve uhr is trying to imply that Trump MUST give Barr the order to call the Ukrainian President BEFORE Trump tells the Ukrainian President to expect the call, or else it is suspicious and indicative of guilt. Why? No reason is given. For Trump to tell Barr to place the call *before* Trump tells the UP to expect it can only result in Barr possibly calling the UP before Trump gets to tell him to expect the call, which Trump obviously doesn't want.
Now, even the most anal person on the planet could not *actually* find anything wrong with the fact that Trump told someone to expect a call before giving the order for that call to be placed. But we know steve uhr isn't anal at all when it comes to casually dismissing Biden's taped bragging about strong-arming the Ukranians to drop an investigation of his son.
This is gaslighting, pure and simple. To say that steve uhr is being insane is to give him far too much credit. He's a lying fucking asshole, because no one can be that genuinely stupid or insane. He just figures that if he talks about utterly normal and logical things Trump does as if they are crimes, and talks about prima fascia evidence of flagrant corruption on Biden's part as if it's perfectly normal, that he'll be helping his side's cause.
Pretending it was parody was just cover for creating a false accusation. That's what it was. That's what he hoped. Ask yourself this: would a man with Schiff's terrible character and propensity to lying actually want people to think it was parody or truth? Parody when confronted about the lie, but a lie he still wanted to fly as far as possible. Every person who believes it or even part of it is a win for Schiff's plan. A truely dispicable human form.
which is in keeping the us/uk mutual assistance treaty, but it's clear ambassador jovanich and probably miss hill, also at the nsc, were gatekeepers to block any info to the proper authorities,
A parody is a comic interpretation of a situation that has occurred. What value would a parody of something yet hidden be? How would you know what to parodise? How would it be funny if you can’t compare the author’s interpretation with reality? What Shiff did was make a statement he invented based on no knowledge of the facts of the event. That is not a parody but a fiction, or rather a lie. What do we think he was doing, reading cuts from his historical short story oeuvre?
Trumps speech was parody because he exaggerated and over stated a documented real event to make it seem grotesque.
Why I think the 2020 needle will move in Trump's favor: he has not yet begun to fight against an identified opponent.
There's an interesting legal issue involved apart from all the factual disputes. The issue is whether it is proper for a president to ask a foreign country to "dig up dirt" on a political adversary of the president. Let's assume there's no quid pro quo, not even an implied one, just a request for assistance. I think it matters what the president is asking for. There's a continuum. If he's asking the foreign country to manufacture false information about the foe, that's clearly wrong. But suppose he's asking the foreign country to investigate credible charges of serious wrongdoing. For example, suppose he's heard credible rumors that the political foe murdered a prostitute in the foreign country. That's not a US crime and there's no basis for US jurisdiction. Would it be wrong for the president to discuss those rumors with the foreign country and ask them to investigate? I don't think so. I'm not sure where I would draw the line, or where the Biden case falls along this continuum. But it all seems a lot more complicated and nuanced to me than the simple impeachment story that the Democrats are peddling.
Some are missing my point and attributing ideas to me that I disagree with. Let me try again. I was simply trying to answer Althouse's equating Trump's purported misrepresentation with Schiff's clear misrepresentation. As to the former, the details of Pete and Lisa's affair (did they say "I love you" and if so how many times?) are of little interest to the nation, and thus it does matter to the nation if Trump quotes them accurately (especially in obviously comic fashion at a campaign rally). On the other hand, the details of what Trump said to the Ukrainian president (was there a quid pro quo? Did he ask Ukraine to make up stuff about Biden? Or did he just ask that Biden's admitted strong-arming tactics be investigated?) is very important to the nation, and thus it is outrageous and indefensible that Schiff misrepresented those details, especially in Congress during an impeachment "inquiry."
I think that getting truth before the American electorate is fine. Lies, like the Steel Dossier, and the whole Russia Hoax that had MSNBC calling POTUS a traitor and inspiring a nutcake to shoot up a softball practice while shouting "Trump is a traitor” or whatever? Out of bounds. But getting the Ukraine to leak dirt on Manafort, well it was real dirt, just like Wikileaks, and the greater good is that the public should know.
It’s Democrats though who changed the standard the second that the Mueller report was done.
"a documented real event to make it seem grotesque.”
It was grotesque how the FBI was trying to subvert our democracy. I really lked the line in the texts about being able to “smell the Trump support” at the Walmart. Not prejudiced at all! And BTW, remember when people who shopped at Walmart were the Democrats main concern? That was a long time ago, before they decided that people with a lot of money were more. fun. That’s why Hillary is so popular in wealthy suburbs, like Cambridge.
Would it be wrong for the president to discuss those rumors with the foreign country and ask them to investigate?
Would it be wrong for FDR to ask Churchill about those rumor of gas chambers in Germany ?
Suppose that in 2007 an Iraqi prosecutor known to be investigating Halliburton was abruptly fired, and in 2010 Dick Cheney stated in public that he had obtained the firing by threatening to withhold a US loan guarantee to Iraq. Would it have been wrong for President Obama to ask Prime Minister Maliki for help in determining whether anything improper had occurred?
ebastian said...
"The more I go back to Trump's original statement, the more it seems like something a President ought to do."
Of course. So, Althouse, have the Dems gone too far this time? Or are you still "neutral"?
__________
Thanks Sebastian!
This clarifies issue I have grasping what AA mean by cruel neutrality.
I see Constitution as drawing RED Line between individual freedom and government power. Limiting government = line stays RED in favor of the individual.
Some want to wash out RED = cruel neutrality?
That's my Q to Emerita.
From narciso’s link:
In fall of 2016 as Obama’s director for Ukraine on the NSC, Ciaramella was the main force pushing Trump-Russia conspiracy theories.
You know what is unserious? Secret trials where the prosecution leaks cherry picked tidbits with its own spin.
She[Fired Ukrainian Ambassador] warned against people who in search of personal gain or private influence undermined the work of American government officials and threatened the policy goals of the United States. - New York Times
I thought she was testifying against Trump, and all along it was Biden! Oh yeah, and Kerry, Pelosi, Romney... all the powerful politicians with kids with their snout in the Ukraine trough.
Mr. Majestyk said...
The details of the Strozk-Page affair are of little to no concern to the nation. The details of Trump's call are of great concern to the nation. That's the difference.
No. They are both important. Furthermore you know they are. You're just being dishonest.
And Ann. While you might have sussed it being parody, it was executed in such a way that it was intended to deceive. To cement opinion.
Rusty, did you read my comment of 8:43 pm? IF so and you still disagree, I'd be interested in hearing why.
steve uhr said...
Whether is is factual or not, it is still "dirt"
The ambiguity of your words is your refuge, but as a former prosecutor, apparently everything that you used to prosecute people was, as best I can understand your words, dirt.
Mr. Majestyk said...
The details of the Strozk-Page affair are of little to no concern to the nation. The details of Trump's call are of great concern to the nation. That's the difference.
A person with such a cool handle shouldn't be such a Scheisskerl.
Mr. Majestyk said...
Some are missing my point and attributing ideas to me that I disagree with. Let me try again.
Then I withdraw my prior remark, and AA/Meade may just wipe both that comment and this one, though I feel the valuable word "Scheisskerl" is not in nearly enough currency.
[Correct thread]: Trump was embellishing for effect true texts of coup makers that should be severely and permanently punished. Schiff was a stinking liar, as per usual. Not even on the same plane.
Would it be wrong for FDR to ask Churchill about those rumor of gas chambers in Germany ?
If he had, he would have been interrupting a lot of war crimes aimed at starving and bombing civilians.
Post a Comment