All these economically anxious white people want hand outs but magically have money for racist grifter go fund me scams?
And who is paying John Bolton $2 million, books confirmed scam. Ain’t nobody reading that shit.
LOL
This means Gucciardo hasn’t been repaid and could sue if he believes he’s been defrauded. Parnas once pursued a similar scam, and still hasn’t paid despite a court ruling against him.
As for Giuliani’s relationship with Gucciardo, he told me, “Charles is a good man. The loan is due in mid 2020 and I am certain it will be honored as a conversion to stock or both or satisfied as he desires.” It is currently not clear whether a Fraud Guarantee public offering is in the works.
LOL
This all reflects a larger theme in Trump world: As it becomes increasingly untenable for serious people to associate themselves with Trump, their world gets smaller, and the tried and true allies who hang on find themselves with fewer and fewer options for top-tier advisers, lawyers, campaign staff, and so on. It’s hard to quench the thirst for loyalty in the middle of such a drought, but, as the saying goes, there’s honor among thieves. They might at first seem like odd couples, but they tend to play in the same sandbox, by the same rules.
This Week today started with a decent summary of the impeachment events (see below). I feel like there’s already a loss of momentum and the public is losing the thread of what happened, especially with Republicans muddying everything up as much as possible.
Dems should be hammering a message based on the simplicity of the story and the evidence. Continue to investigate, have long hearings where they get into all the details, get into the coverup, etc., but in public statements they should just focus on how simple the whole thing is. Call it “Arms for Dirt” or whatever but emphasize that the investigations being demanded were not for the good of the country, they were for the personal political benefit of the president. Over and over.
Then when the trial starts, keep focusing on the simplicity. Make it clear that nobody could possibly look at the evidence and exonerate the president in good faith. Any senator voting to acquit has to say either that there’s reasonable doubt about the President’s guilt (which is laughable) or that it just doesn’t matter (which is probably worse).
RADDATZ: Good morning and welcome to THIS WEEK. It started with one whistle-blower. Now less than two months later, a full-blown impeachment inquiry set to reach a critical phase. The first public testimony that will likely shape public perceptions of the investigation and the future of the Trump presidency. The central questions: was it an abuse of power for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival here at home? Was he acting to further his own personal and political interests by withholding military aid from a key U.S. ally? With all of the rhetoric flying from both sides of the aisle and President Trump’s own free-wheeling defense, we wanted to hit the pause button and ask: how did we get here?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA), SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE: The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution.
RADDATZ: September 24th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi formally opens an impeachment inquiry after a bombshell whistle-blower complaint raised concerns over Trump’s July phone call with the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
TRUMP: The conversation was – was perfect. My phone call was perfecto.
RADDATZ: According to a White House memo detailing that call, Trump tells the Ukrainian president, “we do a lot for Ukraine.” Zelenskiy later responds, “we are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps…”, specifically buying American anti-tank missiles. Trump’s response, “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” He goes on to ask Zelenskiy to investigate a debunked theory about the 2016 election, and then a second request, an investigation into his Democratic rival.
SCHIFF: It goes to the core of whether the president abused his office to seek political help in his re-election campaign and did so to the detriment of our nation’s security.
RADDATZ: House Democrats have issued at least 26 subpoenas and at least 15 individuals have appeared before Congress. According to witness testimony, Trump’s demand was pushed by his top advisers, including his acting chief of staff and his personal attorney, in phone calls and meetings for months. Among the key testimony so far, Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine who told Congress he was told “everything,” including military aid and a White House meeting was contingent on Ukraine’s willingness to launch the investigation Trump requested. Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the E.U., who in a stunning about-face, revised his testimony. Sondland now saying he told a top Ukrainian official Ukraine would likely not receive military aid unless Ukraine publicly agreed to investigate Trump’s targets. And Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a White House national security official who was on that July phone call. Vindman recalled one meeting in particular where senior Ukrainian officials were told they had to investigate the Bidens. Colonel Vindman also testified he was told the hold on military aid came from the White House chief of staff’s office. In the face of mounting evidence, the president has been unrelenting in his defense.
TRUMP: Impeachment witch hunt. It’s all a hoax.
RADDATZ: Republicans largely closing ranks around the president as Democrats move forward.
SCHIFF: Those open hearings will be an opportunity for the American people to evaluate the witnesses for themselves, to make their own determinations about the credibility of the witnesses, but also to learn firsthand about the facts of the president’s misconduct.
Duke,
Did you write that?
I have been pondering several ideas for social media outreach. Unfortunately with only a couple of exceptions, my creative efforts almost by default contain an element of satire and irony, which is not exactly helpful for direct messaging and persuasion in a political campaign meant to inspire engagement and education.
Something like what you posted would be easily modified into social media campaigns.
And I know we are all get off Facebook/Instagram/etc, but if you are willing to exploit their audience targeting interface, you can get VERY specific about who sees the promoted posts.
Dems aren’t losing momentum. The trial starts Wednesday. This isn’t about instant gratification.
He lacks a six year old’s grasp of the English language. 25th amendment should be invoked but lol at a bunch of senile ok boomers using it to remove another senile ok boomer.
Quoted material in my previous post is from a rush transcript of this morning’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”.
Impeachment Explained with Klein latest episode helped me sort through my expectations. Good and bad.
What do you think about this stuff from Nikki Haley? I think it’s just another example of the admin’s “throw everything at the wall and see if anything sticks” strategy but maybe this one could get some traction for some reason?
Edit to add: this is a syndicated WaPo article posted on the Seattle Times site.
I am okay with the weaponized use of Facebook and Instagram.
How do you feel about setting loose Michael Bay Jr? You will probably know what I mean if you have seen his movies. On the nose, high contrast visuals, and an average shot of less than half a second lol. I hate this stuff but effective social media is like one long Michael Bay movie.