The mobsters trying to intimidate him into not testifying, or to discourage others from coming out against them in the future.
It’s also worth noting that we keep looking for some sort of internal consistency or logic in the Republican defense but they are not bound by either of those constraints. They are simply putting forth alternate narratives with no basis in reality and then the press is dutifully repeating them and that clouds things enough for the base or the average joe not following closely to assume that the truth is murkier than it is and that this could all be just partisan politics.
There was a frustrating AP round up on the latest impeachment news yesterday and fully two thirds of it was “such and such Republican said…” So that bullshit gets equal weight in the narrative. Or more weight because they are spamming the bullshit.
It’s an effective strategy if you’re counting on this being tried in the court of public opinion.
So there was no whistleblower? Your refusal to call him/her to testify clearly shows that you made the whole whistleblower thing up as an excuse to begin unfounded investigations into President Trump. This was all just a sham concocted by Adam Schiff and Democrats to justify their Impeachment Inquiry which is clearly all built on lies and deception. We now have all the evidence we need to justify voting to squash this ridiculous Witchhunt.
/GOP
No, the whistleblower will need to make an appearance at some point, but the way it’s managed is important. If the evidence collected elsewhere is overwhelming, then the whistleblower is simply the beginning of a much larger event, someone who simply verifies why the investigation was started, not the key witness or sole accuser for the Republicans to focus on. It’s also important because it shows that the GOP cannot get away with their intimidation tactics, that when someone in government service sees shit like this going down, they can feel confident that reporting it will lead to a well managed investigation and repercussions for those involved, and that they will be protected during the process and afterwards.
I’ve been thinking that also… too much Latin getting thrown around. If we want to hammer home Why It Matters then it could use a rebranding.
I’m also not a huge fan of the frequent use of “digging up dirt” in this context.
RichVR
3111
Like I’ve said to the wife. Simplify it. Most voters couldn’t tell you what quid pro quo means. Hell, I’d bet Trump doesn’t know what it means either.
Timex
3112
People need to be less fucking stupid.
Nesrie
3113
No. No. this can’t be. We’ve even had this term in TV and movies, more than a few, and we know people watch those.
MikeJ
3114
Yeah “digging up dirt” is completely the wrong phrase. Maybe slander or “manufacture a false scandal”.
The problem I’ve always had with “quid pro quo” being used in this case is that it makes this crime seem very innocuous. “A favor for a favor” seems a lot less shitty than “you won’t get these congressionally approved funds until you do this personal task.”
It’s attempted bribery and extortion, with money that’s not even his own. Plain and simple.
Banzai
3118
Yeah, it is particularly galling that trump didnt even have the right to hold up the funds in the first place given that they had been aporoved by congress. He just made up the whole ‘i can hold the funds’ part of the scam, which not surprisingly, is ilegal all by itself, much less the extortion.
Art of the deal indeed. If you are mafia.
Guap
3119
“Someday, and that day may never come, I will ask you for a favor… Oh wait, that day came. Got any dirt on Biden?”
Trump is mentally handicapped Corleone.
I don’t think that frame will accomplish anything - it’s much easier to dismiss by simply focusing on all the testimony and ignoring ridiculous claims like “there was no whistleblower”. You do not need to produce the whistleblower for any purpose at all - you simply need to get the testimony of the actual witnesses of these events.
I think this is a lazy reaction (though you are far from the only one saying something along these lines). People know what it means and they aren’t turned off by the latin phrase - it’s an English term, just like people use “caveat” all the time.
The real reason to shift phrasing is to explicitly invoke the language of the Constitution. Quid pro quo isn’t a meaningless or confusing phrase, but it’s easier to say that quid pro quo is diplomacy than to say that bribery and extortion is.
Guap
3122
Y’all that think the general American public isn’t as dumb as people think
need to go out in public more. Some people are like a different species they are so dumb.
Nesrie
3123
I think there are a lot of vile people who like to pretend to be dumb as an out. I mean it’s one thing to say you don’t know because you don’t know and another to say you don’t know because you don’t want to know because it makes your “team” look bad.
Its not like he ran from the word “collusion”. Once he learns that’s what it means, he would just start shouting “No bribery!” 100 times every rally.
Apparently people in the service misuse the word enough that it’s become something of a joke:
I enjoy some crackers and caveat from time to time.
