,
26 tweets,
7 min read
Read on Twitter
An explicit quid pro quo? No. But conservatives argued - properly so - that when Obama mused aloud about siccing the IRS on political opponents or prejudged that Hillary had done nothing indictable, he didn't have to be 100% explicit for it to be bad.
Apply the same logic here.
Apply the same logic here.
I mean, we all learned in school that Henry II didn't have to say explicitly, "kill that meddlesome priest, please."
There are times when you acknowledge that you made an argument & lost it (I think the standard for impeachment is not what I wanted it to be in 1998), but if you just abandon your standards every time Democrats treat them with contempt, you will shortly have no standards at all.
"This should not result in impeachment" is a reasonable argument. "This was overhyped" is a reasonable argument. "Democrats also did awful things for which they should answer" is a reasonable argument.
"There's nothing wrong with this picture" is not a reasonable argument.
"There's nothing wrong with this picture" is not a reasonable argument.
The specifically overhyped part of this is that Trump never talks about U.S. aid at all. He spends much more of the call talking about Biden, investigations & Rudy. But that doesn't get him in the clear given the "I would like you to do us a favor though" when Zelensky raises it.
But the second problem here is the president asking a foreign head of state to cooperate with his personal lawyer on an investigation. That's extremely out of the ordinary, & there's a reason it's out of the ordinary.
Traditionally (i.e., pre-Obama/Biden), we would ask other countries to cooperate in *our* investigations, but it would be much more unusual for the president of the United States to ask a foreign government to investigate a U.S. citizen.
In an election, the comparative question comes in play: how much harm are you willing to deliberately inflict on innocent people & on the country to be rid of Trump doing this sort of thing?
But today, on its own, it should not be hard to say "yes, this is bad."
But today, on its own, it should not be hard to say "yes, this is bad."
Which is why, if he was speaking through a translator, this conversation would proceed slowly.
Aside: I really pity anyone tasked with simultaneously translating Donald Trump.
Aside: I really pity anyone tasked with simultaneously translating Donald Trump.
Thread
Thread with another perspective. Of course, it is strange for the president to say that the AG will be in touch, and then not tell the AG to get in touch
Thread. There is no way around the fact that Hunter Biden was making money - in fact, making his entire living - off his proximity to his father's political influence. And Joe Biden, in his fifth decade in DC, can't possibly have been unaware of that
Yep. It's not 100% verbatim, and it's wise to read a conversation impressionistically to get how it was perceived. But as these sorts of transcripts go, it's pretty diligent
You will notice - and this latest controversy is by no means the only example - the pattern:
1. "Release X! X will bring down Trump!"
2. X comes out, isn't what we were promised.
3. "We told you releasing just X was a coverup! Release Y! It's not a real investigation until..."
1. "Release X! X will bring down Trump!"
2. X comes out, isn't what we were promised.
3. "We told you releasing just X was a coverup! Release Y! It's not a real investigation until..."
For example, remember when the be-all & end-all of things was the FBI interviewing Mark Judge? And then they did, & nobody ever mentioned him again?
Schiff sure sounds like a guy who is backing away from the original marketing of this story as a quid pro quo
It's not in Biden's political interest to focus more attention on Hunter Biden
It would be useful to get someone more credible than Chris Murphy on the record saying this
True, and oft-overlooked by people who are more interested in using Trump as a club against Republicans
Likely true. Also likely true that virtually everyone will just chalk this up to Trump being exactly what they already assumed Trump is like
As to 2020, I'm still where I've been for months now: I resent being asked to cast a ballot for a man who is manifestly unfit for the job, but I also not want to hand power to a party that will make the lives of Americans worse & do permanent damage to its vital institutions.
Inasmuch as that means no good choices, well, there's no reason to make me want to commit any earlier than I need to. But I continue to not blame other conservatives who have cast their lot already with Trump 2020 or Never Trump 2020.
It will not surprise me if the outcome of this whole thing is to do only modest damage to Trump, but extensive damage to Biden, who after all still has a primary fight to win
"A confidential diplomatic communication between the president and a foreign leader," singular.
Readout of the call is somewhat ambiguous as to whether Trump actually asked Zelensky to investigate the Bidens or just cooperate with a US investigation, but it certainly appears that Zelensky interpreted it as the former, & Trump rolled with it: 
Yeah, and this gets back to my point about reading the readout impressionistically, as it would be received in a back-and-forth conversation
