5775

I too am puzzled by the notion that people in this case are taking an innocent statement that couldn’t possibly be taken at face value and twisting it through the lens of their bias.

It’s not like he’s made a secret that he’s told everyone to withhold evidence and testimony. It’s not like this is a reveal. The entire day yesterday was about subpoenas for material from the administration. His attorneys likely recently briefed him on things, and lawyers tend to use the term “material” for documents and things you find in discovery. I’m not sure how it’s any kind of leap to think he was talking about documents. How it is not the most blazingly obvious conclusion? I mean unfocused rambling where he’s just randomly stringing together words he recently heard is a close second, but to think he was talking about the documents that were the very topic of the day’s impeachment trial is far from unreasonable.

5776

You folks probably think you’re stating facts but really you’re spewing hate and froth.

5777

That’s where I was a little confused. The White House is withholding evidence and we’re having a battle right now over it. Trump comes out and says he’s confident because he has the material and Democrats don’t. Could he have meant that in a different way? Sure. But again, he’s been saying the quiet part out loud for years now, so I don’t know why it’s bias or crazy talk to assume he’s talking about the same topic everyone else was yesterday.

5778

Yep, “material” in any context is not a regular part of his shrinking vocabulary and he wasn’t talking to his joke writers yesterday but rather his attorneys.

5779

Material in a legal context means “pertaining to the matter at hand” not “documents”

5780

Words often have multiple meanings. Now google “discovery materials”.

5781

So the argument is that he was discussing discovery with his lawyers (in a case with no discovery) and therefore said “we have all the material”? Why is this interpretation any more likely than discussing material witnesses, material arguments, or material facts?

The point is that this is a distraction, it is meaningless because he is either covering up damning evidence or there is no reason at all for Republicans to help him conceal the evidence. He isn’t sitting on a bunch of exculpatory evidence, or he would have said “We have all the exculpatory”

5782

Quoted just because of how you’re accusing other people of behaving.

He most certainly is withholding documents and trying mightily to prevent witnesses from testifying. (unless you’re willing to argue that that is not what he’s doing?) Is your alternative version that he is withholding evidence that would exonerate him?

5783

I feel like Trump actually is suggesting that his withholding those documents is proving advantageous to him.

5784

Pretty much. Not that it would make a difference, the GOP would just shrug and move on with their day.

5785

He’s not wrong. He’s obstructing justice / Congress daily and getting away with it.

5786

I added the term discovery so your search would have context. I made no claim that this is a normal trial with a discovery phase. Even outside of a literal discovery material still has the same meaning.

You rejected that “material” can mean documents and posted based on the first thing you found when googling “legal dictionary material”. I corrected you pointing out that in another legal context material does indeed mean documents. You can still believe that’s not what he meant but at least admit that material can mean documents.

5787

I didn’t google anything - I am quite familiar with the term material, which is used in many more cases than simply documents. I listed a few. Of course it also can mean documents. But no one says “we have the material” so it’s difficult to parse his ramblings one way or the other and it’s a fool’s errand to try to claim that some barely-coherent phrase is a blatant admission that they are concealing evidence. “We have all the material” in the context of his previous sentences is nonsense, and it will make no difference at all to claim that his nonsense is evidence of anything.

EDIT: I mean, two sentences earlier he blatantly rewrites history to claim that he released the call transcript after Schiff told the democrats what was in the call. That seems like the more extreme part of his statement. Following it up with “so I think the team is doing well, and honestly we have all the material, they don’t have any material” just seems like a straightforward Trumpian claim that he has the facts and other people have fake news.

5788

That interpretation is far too obvious, direct and literal. No, must be something else.

5789

There’s only way we will ever know for certain. The president’s head should be removed, the brain chopped into ultra-thin slices, and the slices digitized so that future generations of neuroscientists can piece together what he meant by his statement.

5790

Uh…

Just stop now.

5791

The real show is starting again right now.

5792

Jesus. Can we stop arguing about what Trump meant by “material” in his throwaway bullshit? He’s a crook. We know it and he knows it. He’s also not going to be removed from office regardless of the evidence presented.

5793

Schiff is playing nicey-nice after Nadler’s bad cop last night.

5794

Too bad, we all know the GOP worships bad cops.