3127

When it’s a bit chilly in the house I wear my caveat with my smoking jacket.

3128

The article below it caught my eye:

Historic first! Female Infantry private marries male stripper in Killeen, TX

So this site just posts news about anything military related?

3129

It’s The Onion For Soldiers

3130

Oh dear lord, another one.

3131

I took four years of Latin and I absolutely think “quid pro quo” is a bad label to use for Trump’s crimes. You want something that makes the average person gasp when they hear it, or squirm when they think, “The President of the United States commited ________.” A quid pro quo practically means “making a trade.” What’s so bad about that?

“Extortion” is pretty good. Sounds sharp-edged, cruel–a verbal stiletto. Even if I can’t define it, it’s clearly a villainous thing to do. Quid pro quo? I do that with a martini in my hand while we all smile smugly.

You gotta think like advertisers, here. Not deceptive, but working with connotations, associations, and feelings.

If “quid pro quo” is the thing on everyone’s lips, then it’s way too easy for Trump’s allies to say “what’s the big deal?” You can’t say, “It’s just a little extortion!”

3132

I agree, but the reason is that there are better terms not that people are too dumb to understand the complex Latin of quid pro quo

3133

Quid pro quo has been used pretty much forever to describe where the line is crossed and something becomes bribery and/or corruption.

I don’t really think the term is the problem. There are people who will acknowledge the facts and those who won’t, and the term probably isn’t going to make any difference to the latter.

3134

I’ve mostly seen it used to describe a trade or a favor for a favor. Like in Silence of the Lambs, for example. You tell me something, I’ll tell you something. It’s only very rarely that I’ve seen it used to descibe an actual crime. “Bribery” or “extortion” is usually used for the actual cases in news stories.

3135

You would be correct if the object of this impeachment process was an actual impeachment. However, I think we all recognize that Trump is not going to be impeached as there is simply no way the Republican controlled Senate is going to vote in favor of impeachment. So knowing the outcome in advance, the goals of the process change. What Dems need to do is provide such an iron clad case for impeachment that it becomes crystal clear to America that any Senate GOP member who votes against it is choosing Party (and Trump) over Country. That means no weaseling out, no loopholes through which GOP reps can cast doubt on the process, and unfortunately that means trotting out every single person involved from start to finish for testimony on the record. “Anonymous” isn’t going to cut it when you’re attempting to expose the complete breakdown of rule of law and the total subversion of the Republican Party, and THAT is what this is about even moreso than impeachment.

3136

That’s as much of a pipe dream as impeach and remove. There are always ways to cast doubt, and bringing in the whistleblower to testify is simply legitimizing any attacks against them by making them a key component of the case. Making the case without the whistleblower’s testimony is far, far stronger. it won’t matter to Republican Senators, but it will matter to anyone who is possibly persuaded by a strong case. Attacking the whistleblower will happen regardless of what you do. Attacking an anonymous whistleblower whose words and information are never mentioned by the impeachment proceedings, or the attack ads that follow it will be less effective than attacking a whistleblower who stands up in front of Congress and puts a single name on the accusation.

3137

Huh. Weird.

3138

Yeah, I called this one. I’m sure lots of folks did.
The idea of public hearings does not end well for Trump.

3139

Also:


HAHAHAHAHA

And Sondland goes under the bus.

3140

Dude, is that for real? This is the slimiest guy I’ve ever seen. It’s Orwellian, his bullshit.

3141

We have always been at war with Public Hearingsia.

3142

Search your feelings!

3143

‘Absolute immunity’ sounds pretty sweet.

3144

I mean, for their worldview it makes sense. Trump is a dictator, a king. Who is this unruly rabble to question him?

3145

We don’t need to wait for some legal case to go before the courts. We can involve the courts post haste.

Just send out the Capitol Police to detain these people and bring them to the Capitol building jail until they comply with the supeona. Their lawyers will get right on that court challenge. In the meantime they can be guests of Congress for as long as they like.

3146

Pairs well with enhanced interrogation.