Noted and agreed.

I have fond memories of Natalie Imbroglio. I hope she's not caught up in all of this.

MSM is mischaracterizing this as Trump pressuring Ukraine to "dig up dirt on Biden". Trump knows damn well there's no "dirt" there. It's the "investigation" Trump wants. An investigation proves the suspicion and the suspicion proves the smear.Trump is pressuring Ukraine to legitimize Trump's lies about Biden with a bogus investigation.

That's how it should be reported.


PairTheBoard

How do we know there isn't dirt exactly?
Because Biden and the Ukrainians are always acting above board? Seems really silly to speculate there.

In that case then what I'm saying is that this really doesn't matter.

FWIW, Turley is almost certainly correct that Democratic House leadership believes impeachment of Trump is bad politics. One can agree or disagree with Pelosi et al. on that point, but I think it is an accurate description of what they believe. And having their hand forced by an issue that can only hurt Biden would be super uncomfortable for them.

I think the average voter is so tired of the impeachment talk. Either do it or shut up and win the next election.

I actually agree with you here, I think. Even though it seems clear that Joe Biden wasn’t pressuring Ukraine to protect his son, that doesn’t mean that the fact that Biden’s son was on the board in the first place wasn’t due to corruption or some other impropriety. That is not to say that Trump is right or justified or to take any focus off his clear abuse of power, but let’s not get out over our skis in defending the Bidens.

Instead of parroting Giuliani's talking points probably better to just post them eh

He doesn’t provide any citation or source for this supposed fact.

Here is an article from The Intercept you might find useful, "Reporters Luckbox Inc Should Stop Helping Donald Trump Spread Lies About Joe Biden and Ukraine."

This is how the Smear Machine rolls.

Baseless accusation --> Call for investigation --> Public Suspicion -->

--> More calls for investigation --> Toss in some innuendos --> More Suspicion

--> Smoke means Fire --> Loss of Trust --> Votes Suppressed


PairTheBoard

Do you see why I'm saying it doesn't matter yet? I'm not a reporter yet you're acting like I'm the one spreading misinformation and if everyone just got their news from....Just Security....that we'd all be super informed.
Bring on the impeachment proceedings ifam. Trump got caught trying to manufacture some stuff and went down due his own hubris, just like everyone knew he would...

You are spreading misinformation - that's just literally what happened here. You're not a reporter, so it only affects a few people, but that's what you're doing. That's not that big a deal, we all get stories wrong occasionally, but it shows a lack of self-respect that you don't even seem to care. Do you not want to speak the truth? Do you not want people to view you as honest and trustworthy? Or at least to be honest and trustworthy?

Here is my prediction: we're still waiting on the IG report that is said to detail alleged FISA abuses by the Obama admin and justice department during the Trump/Russia investigation.
When that report comes out, it will show the democrats in similar sorts of behavior or worse. It will look bad for them but they'll be able to point at Trump/Ukraine. The effect though is more people wake up to the corrupt system and nature of politics while still keeping them in their two-party bubbles a bit. Keep the partisans partisans to sell media but bring people a step closer to demanding the reforms that the ruling class seeks to make in the first place.

Care about what exactly? What the actual facts are? You tell me. It's from Just Security, the prosecutor was corrupt and the West hated him and Biden as a representative of the West and of US policy wanted an honest one?
This is the truth?

What does any of this have to do with the fact that you’re willfully spreading misinformation?

Are you 8? I recant what I said about what Biden admitted to saying--clearly he did not reference his son or the company on whose board his son sat in that clip. Who gives a **** though? Why does that matter?

Care about telling the truth. You started out ITT by saying something clearly false, that Biden had admitted to pressuring the Ukrainians to stop investigating his son. When I pointed this out you made some sarcastic remarks and ignored your error and moved on to the next bit of GOP misinformation.

You are still misrepresenting the issue. Sure, the US and the EU did care about corruption in Ukraine, but this isn't just something imposed from outside. So do the Ukrainians, which is why their Parliament got rid of Shokin, and seemingly one of the main reason Zelensky was just elected president.



If you think the article from Just Security is lying or wrong, then tell me where. I don't buy your media conspiracies, so I'm starting from different priors, that reporters are generally trying to tell the truth. So just putting ellipsis around the name of the website doesn't persuade me of anything.

I'm taking your word that this is Trump ginning up trouble.
I'm not taking your word that Biden and Co aren't dirty.
None of this is that hard but you're looking to make it out to be. What do you think is going to come of this?

I'm afraid Professor Turley has this "mess" (or whatever you want to call it) pegged just about right. This imbroglio works out as a net positive for Trump and a net negative for Democrats. Even if Biden survives this onslaught, managing to become the Democratic nominee, this episode has damaged - possibly mortally wounded - his candidacy. If Biden doesn't survive and we wind up with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee, it's 2016 redux: Trump gets re-elected.

Despite my liberal bent, I'm enough of a pragmatist to realize that a candidate too far to the left is unelectable. I keep wondering how many times the Democratic Party will go down to defeat - by nominating too-far-to-the-left candidates - before the light bulb finally comes on? I thought they might have "got it" back in 1972 after they nominated George McGovern, but, alas, I was wrong ... (A 49-state defeat in the Electoral College should have "sent a message" to Dems, but apparently not.)

As an unrepentant "librul," I'm about to throw up ...

You are literally posting tweets from Trump's personal lawyer on this story ITT. You don't need to take my word for it that Trump is pushing this story. Trump has also spoken publicly and tweeted about this story. I also linked two articles quoting Trump and Giuliani on this story. Don't take my word for anything, just read the sources.

Who knows? Of the Biden story, it'll probably be a major GOP talking point about how he is corrupt if he wins the nomination. On the Trump side, it will probably spark investigations in the House, and depending on what they find, could just be nothing, could be a scandal that makes Trump looks bad, or could lead to impeachment.

EDIT: I don't really care about whether you think Biden is dirty. My understanding is that you think basically all senior politicians are dirty. I disagree with you about this claim, but whatever, people disagree. My criticism is directed at your attempt to support your view by misusing evidence and relying on obviously untrustworthy sources.

Giuliani is the news dude.
Posting his tweets is totally fine. It would be like saying I'm posting Trump tweets.

I don't have a problem with you posting tweets from Giuliani.

One thing about Rudy, he is good at his job of a disinformation propagandist. He finds multiple spots where he can give the truth just a little tweak or twist to create lies that add to the heap of innuendo. The picture he paints is like Jackson Pollock's interpretation of Salvador Dali's interpretation of Picasso's Guernica. His lies are so numerous and complex that only experts can follow all the fact checking required to unravel them. This makes a fact based defense exhausting and ineffective.

The sad thing is it seems the only effective defense is the same one Trump uses when justly accused. Completely deny everything and attack the accuser. The moral high ground doesn't give you much advantage when dealing with the amoral.


PairTheBoard