CNN vs. Fox on Impeachment

[SLD]

So I thought it would be interesting to see what the bombshell testimony from yesterday and checked out CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-testimony/index.html

Sure enough, he’s destroyed Trump's defense.

But not according to Foxnews:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kevin...yed-latest-trump-impeachment-inquiry-argument

Apparently Taylor folded under cross examination by Republican lawmakers. OK.

Maybe one day we will get the truth.

SLD

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Rep. McCarthy said he wants to hear evidence directly from the person who enacted or ordered Quid Pro Quo, otherwise, it didn't happen. Oddly enough, Mulvaney did just that, but that apparently wasn't enough.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So I thought it would be interesting to see what the bombshell testimony from yesterday and checked out CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-testimony/index.html

Sure enough, he’s destroyed Trump's defense.

But not according to Foxnews:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kevin...yed-latest-trump-impeachment-inquiry-argument

Apparently Taylor folded under cross examination by Republican lawmakers. OK.

Maybe one day we will get the truth.

SLD

I cannot say enough how important it is to use primary sources and think critically. It used to be very important but with today, everything gets passed around instantly in meme form and you hear things 10th hand.

So, first, I'd recommend reading the letter that Taylor read as opposed to trusting either Fox OR CNN. You can experiment to see which one reflects the reality of Taylor's letter afterward. BUT also any mention of how it was received and criticized should also be double-checked by examining congressional record OR at least snippets of how it was received, though those may be cherry-picked/quote-mined.

BUT and this is important Taylor's letter shouldn't be treated as a primary source either, only in the context of what Taylor said--not what Trump said. If you read the letter, there is an AMAZING amount of goodies in there, but you have to keep in mind he was also somewhat removed from Trump. You also have to think critically like I wrote above. So, when he overhears talk about an investigation and quid pro quo, it isn't always necessarily about Burisma, though it may be. It's reason enough to get additional documents he discusses and reason enough to interview all the other people he mentioned. And things don't look good.

My conclusion is that even if this was all about investigation into crowd strike, the actual phone transcript with Trump links Burisma and Crowdstrike together as a collective favor which in light of all the other talk of quid pro quo around crowd strike, damns Trump to big trouble. This is some thinking you should try to reproduce as I've outlined as opposed to hearing only from talking heads.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think you are looking a little deep here. Trump wanted a public demonstration from Ukraine in order to weaken Biden even without a single finding being made in said investigation.

Here is the rub. Trump didn't need Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. Much like Trump didn't need to the FBI to indict officials in the Clinton Foundation. What he needs is the illusion that something is happening. If Ukraine publicly announces they are launching an investigation into Biden regarding corruption with an energy giant, Trump has won. That is heavily poor press for Biden, regardless if there is nothing to find. The context from the US public would be, Biden must have done something if Ukraine is investigating it. Much like the fake planted story on the Clinton Fndn indictment that was going to happen (right before the election).

Once the idea is planted, it has generally been presumed to have bloomed.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I think you are looking a little deep here. Trump wanted a public demonstration from Ukraine in order to weaken Biden even without a single finding being made in said investigation.

Here is the rub. Trump didn't need Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. Much like Trump didn't need to the FBI to indict officials in the Clinton Foundation. What he needs is the illusion that something is happening. If Ukraine publicly announces they are launching an investigation into Biden regarding corruption with an energy giant, Trump has won. That is heavily poor press for Biden, regardless if there is nothing to find. The context from the US public would be, Biden must have done something if Ukraine is investigating it. Much like the fake planted story on the Clinton Fndn indictment that was going to happen (right before the election).

Once the idea is planted, it has generally been presumed to have bloomed.

Biden has pretty much already lost because of this.

If you look at the history of how Trump took down his Republican opponents in the primary, there is also a lot of similarity there: conspiracy theories, social media, even Enquirer type magazines helping him...

 

[Toni]

I think you are looking a little deep here. Trump wanted a public demonstration from Ukraine in order to weaken Biden even without a single finding being made in said investigation.

Here is the rub. Trump didn't need Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. Much like Trump didn't need to the FBI to indict officials in the Clinton Foundation. What he needs is the illusion that something is happening. If Ukraine publicly announces they are launching an investigation into Biden regarding corruption with an energy giant, Trump has won. That is heavily poor press for Biden, regardless if there is nothing to find. The context from the US public would be, Biden must have done something if Ukraine is investigating it. Much like the fake planted story on the Clinton Fndn indictment that was going to happen (right before the election).

Once the idea is planted, it has generally been presumed to have bloomed.

Biden has pretty much already lost because of this.

If you look at the history of how Trump took down his Republican opponents in the primary, there is also a lot of similarity there: conspiracy theories, social media, even Enquirer type magazines helping him...

I think that Biden has lost but not so much because of this. The sad reality is that neither Biden nor Sanders have aged well and it shows every time they are on camera. Biden's supporters are simply more realistic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I think you are looking a little deep here. Trump wanted a public demonstration from Ukraine in order to weaken Biden even without a single finding being made in said investigation.

Here is the rub. Trump didn't need Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. Much like Trump didn't need to the FBI to indict officials in the Clinton Foundation. What he needs is the illusion that something is happening. If Ukraine publicly announces they are launching an investigation into Biden regarding corruption with an energy giant, Trump has won. That is heavily poor press for Biden, regardless if there is nothing to find. The context from the US public would be, Biden must have done something if Ukraine is investigating it. Much like the fake planted story on the Clinton Fndn indictment that was going to happen (right before the election).

Once the idea is planted, it has generally been presumed to have bloomed.

Biden has pretty much already lost because of this.

If you look at the history of how Trump took down his Republican opponents in the primary, there is also a lot of similarity there: conspiracy theories, social media, even Enquirer type magazines helping him...

I think that Biden has lost but not so much because of this. The sad reality is that neither Biden nor Sanders have aged well and it shows every time they are on camera. Biden's supporters are simply more realistic.

Agreed, Biden was never going to win, which makes Trump's decision here even more ridiculous.

 

[SLD]

So I thought it would be interesting to see what the bombshell testimony from yesterday and checked out CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/23/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-ukraine-testimony/index.html

Sure enough, he’s destroyed Trump's defense.

But not according to Foxnews:

https://www.foxnews.com/media/kevin...yed-latest-trump-impeachment-inquiry-argument

Apparently Taylor folded under cross examination by Republican lawmakers. OK.

Maybe one day we will get the truth.

SLD

I cannot say enough how important it is to use primary sources and think critically. It used to be very important but with today, everything gets passed around instantly in meme form and you hear things 10th hand.

So, first, I'd recommend reading the letter that Taylor read as opposed to trusting either Fox OR CNN. You can experiment to see which one reflects the reality of Taylor's letter afterward. BUT also any mention of how it was received and criticized should also be double-checked by examining congressional record OR at least snippets of how it was received, though those may be cherry-picked/quote-mined.

BUT and this is important Taylor's letter shouldn't be treated as a primary source either, only in the context of what Taylor said--not what Trump said. If you read the letter, there is an AMAZING amount of goodies in there, but you have to keep in mind he was also somewhat removed from Trump. You also have to think critically like I wrote above. So, when he overhears talk about an investigation and quid pro quo, it isn't always necessarily about Burisma, though it may be. It's reason enough to get additional documents he discusses and reason enough to interview all the other people he mentioned. And things don't look good.

My conclusion is that even if this was all about investigation into crowd strike, the actual phone transcript with Trump links Burisma and Crowdstrike together as a collective favor which in light of all the other talk of quid pro quo around crowd strike, damns Trump to big trouble. This is some thinking you should try to reproduce as I've outlined as opposed to hearing only from talking heads.

Yes, you are absolutely right. what Taylor said, or appears to have said, is that Sondland told him there was a quid pro quod. The key is what did Trump tell Sondland. Obviously it raises serious questions and implicates Sondland in a cover up, but Sondland's testimony would be key.

But this illustrates how Don the Con operates. Sondland has always been a big Trump supporter, a true believer who's drank the koolaid. He grave the campaign a million dollars, and the inauguration as well. He bought himself an ambassadorship. He’s willing to lie for Trump and Trump knows it. Expect him to come out swinging against Taylor. Along with Trump. They can’t touch him as long as fuckhead is in power. He won’t be indicted. He won’t be going to jail. He’ll get a pardon at worst. Surrounding yourself with sycophantic supporters who will say or do anything you need is a good way to be corrupt and yet utterly unimpeachable.

SLD