Republican strategy: lie to the people

So much for respecting their fellow Americans.

This a Trumpian strategy from the day he threw his hat down the escalator into the lobby. No one lies to the people they respect, only to the ones they hold in contempt.

“We won with poorly educated. I love the poorly educated…”

He obviously doesn’t hold them in high regard if he never tells them the truth. His legal team is just more of the same.

No problem, Mitch has the jury in his pocket.


33 thoughts on “Republican strategy: lie to the people

  1. Thomas Friedman offers some good advice to the Democrats on how to beat Trump.


    The key part being this paragraph: “Democrats need to just keep repeating over and over one question: “Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify? Wouldn’t you if you were innocent?””

    They will never sway the GOP members of the Senate, but they can possibly get the electorate to take note of it.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. The trump lawyers seemed unprepared and out right incompetent.

      I thought Schiff was masterful in laying out the facts and connecting the dots. Jeffries was also very compelling and well prepared.

      The fact that the trump defenders outright lied was not surprising in the least. After all it is the current Administration’s stock in trade…

      Liked by 4 people

    2. GOPsters used to listen to Mr Friedman’s advice and they always lost.

      In any case, Mr Trump is presumed innocent and it is up to House Dems to prove that he is guilty. Of course, they have no case, for when he released the transcript of his telcon with President Zelensky, Mr Trump blew Adam Schiff’s, Eric CIA’s and the pudgy Lt Col’s plot right out of the water.

      If one is honest, one knows that the transcript is the ONLY evidence that matters.

      It is also important to note that President Zelensky corroborates the details.


      1. @Thad

        The only evidence that matters is a doctored set of notes which Trump dishonestly described as 100% accurate word for word?

        Uh, no. There is no transcript. Only notes. Speaking at a normal pace you can read aloud the entire “transcript” in about 1/3 the time that the “perfect” phone call lasted. One of the events that triggered the whistleblower was the fact that those notes were first expurgated and then hidden away in an unusual manner.

        You and everyone else who thinks that this Senate “trial” process is appropriate have checked your values, common sense and patriotism at the door. A trial is supposed to EXPOSE relevant evidence, not cover it up. A guilty person does not hide evidence nor suppress testimony. Period. That is so clearly obvious that those who deny it simply embarrass themselves.

        Liked by 3 people

          1. @Thad

            It is not about the impeachment process – which you are cluelessly mis-characterizing – it is about the UNDISPUTED facts. Trump abused the powers of his office and did harm to our national security interests in order to extort political favors from a beleaguered ally. When he got caught – triggered by the actions of the whistle blower and his clumsy attempt to suppress his report – he engaged in a massive cover-up which continues right up to this day as he continues to block testimony and evidence.

            The purpose of a trial is to examine the evidence, not cover it up. Simple concept really.

            No one – even you – really believes that Trump would block testimony and evidence that would exonerate him. The ongoing obstruction is all the proof needed that he should be removed.

            Liked by 1 person

    3. The US Senate consists of 53 Sgt. Schultzes.

      “I see nothing! I hear nothing! I know nothing!”

      Let’s see what happens on the later vote to hear previously banned witnesses. I thought Collins and Murkowski were the only two GOP senators with balls. Maybe a few others will go to the ladies room and discover there is no urinal and join them.

      Unfortunately, so far the GOP is clicking heels, snapping to attention and yellin “sir, yes sir”.

      Liked by 3 people

    1. If you read the article you would learn two things.

      It was an apparent slip up and it has no bearing on the reason for the trial.

      So savor the moment for what it’s worth. Which ain’t much, in my opinion.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Whether he is telling everyone about his “incontrovertible” evidence re Russian collusion, or completely rewriting the transcript of Messrs Trump’s and Zelensky’s phone call, Adam Schiff is the #1 in all of Washington DC.

        As long as he and the grotesque Nadler troll are the faces of the Dem tribe, Mr Trump cannot lose!


  2. Lies or your slant? Truth is Schitt did lock out Republicans except a few on committee and there was no valid reason for it. The complaint is valid as closed door only Schitt approved info was released or leaked. Schitt also made up his own version of the phone call and read it to the public without disclosing it was fake. Just because the transcrit was available does not mean many read it but rely on TV for their “facts”. There was no valid reason for Schitt to do that but to be the pencil neck liberal jackass he is. Any Republican witnesses or cross examination had to be pre-approved by Schitt and he made it clear not much would pass so it was worthless to “participate”. No that was an ultra biased proceeding. IMO


  3. Lie #1 “Truth is Schitt did lock out Republicans except a few on committee and there was no valid reason for it.” The committee members (all 3 committees) of both parties were in attendance. Only those with no bearing who wanted to eat pizza in the gallery and through aspersions on the witnesses or the Democratic members were not allowed. The argument that the GOP was “locked out” is bogus, partisan spin.

    Lie #2 “Schitt also made up his own version of the phone call and read it to the public without disclosing it was fake.” He did, prior to his ill advised parody of the phone call, indicate that he was paraphrasing and not quoting verbatim from the summary of the call. Just because some media sources left that part of their airing out does not change the fact that he indicated he was not quoting verbatim. Your cherry picking is noted, but, damn those pesky facts.

    Lie #3 “Any Republican witnesses or cross examination had to be pre-approved by Schitt and he made it clear not much would pass so it was worthless to “participate”.” Pot calling the kettle black as the same committee, when chaired by Devin “Trump’s Little California Biatch” Nunes, (I can make up cutesy nicknames, too) did the exact same thing during the Russia investigation and was cheered for it. If the GOP wanted to call relevant witnesses, then IMHO, Schiff would have allowed it. The GOP wanted witnesses that had nothing to do with the activity by Trump. They had no desire to hear from fact witnesses just those that maybe should have been investigated under another umbrella. Besides, the biggest jackass of them all is the fast talking used car salesman from Georgia, Doug Collins, who said a lot of words really fast and said…absolutely nada.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. It is obvious that the liberal lemmings are the ones that are bamboozled by hyper partisan crap. Pencil neck Schitt’s pompous pontificating on his soap box is more amusing than SNL and liberal dope smokers eat it up.


        1. @BobR

          Still your deep fascination with excrement? Another sad victim of improper potty training maybe?

          I watched Adam Schiff’s presentation today. He offered a very heavy diet of facts and I did indeed eat it up. Much better than the excrement that you seem to enjoy. And, he did very little pontificating. He simply and persuasively recited the facts and he pointed out the implications of allowing a President to be above the law. You may be happy with that while Trump is President, but how about when AOC sits in the White House?

          Leaving aside the undisputed facts that Trump lead a criminal extortion scheme that involved illegally withholding vital military supplies from a strategic ally and then tried to cover his tracks when he was caught, there are two ideas that will cost the GOP heavily this November . . .

          1. An innocent person welcomes evidence and testimony. Trump doesn’t.
          2. A “trial” where no evidence is allowed and no witnesses called to testify is a partisan joke.

          Everyday Americans can easily understand those simple ideas.

          Liked by 2 people

  4. The Vox article commits journalistic malpractice in two glaring ways:

    1) It gives the piece a sensationalist headline which the body does not support. Specifically, the headline refers to a “blizzard of lies,” but the article highlights only two, plus a couple of strays. Apparently, two snowflakes or as many as five constitute a “blizzard” for Vox.

    2) Vox cites as lies statements which are in fact not lies. Worse, Vox could have found explanations for the statements it thinks are lies in the legal brief the president’s lawyers submitted to the Senate, but Vox fails to report that the brief even exists or to consider the explanations it contains. Specifically:

    Vox “Falsehood No. 1: Trump’s lawyers claimed Republicans didn’t have access to key information during House impeachment inquiry”

    This is true, if you take into account the deposition phase of Schiff’s committee hearing. The depositions were taken behind closed doors (which is normal for depositions) in a SCIF. Some Republicans had access to the SCIF because they were members of the committees taking the depositions. All other Republicans were not allowed in.

    It is technically true, therefore, that some Republicans did not have access to key information during the deposition phase.

    More to the point, for the purposes of the president’s lawyers and as stated in their brief, the president’s lawyers were not allowed to participate in the depositions. Maybe they could have attended, but that’s not the same thing as participating by, for example, asking questions in cross examination, which defendant’s lawyers normally get to do in depositions. Thus, key information the president’s lawyers might have developed as deposition participants was not developed or made accessible to anyone.

    Vox “Falsehood No. 2: Schiff ‘manufactured’ Trump’s comments during the July Zelensky call”

    This is transparently true, even though Vox tries to pass off Schiff’s manufactured version of Trump’s comments as mere paraphrase. Anyone who heard or read Schiff’s “parody” (Schiff’s own word) of the transcript knows that Schiff’s colorations are so egregious as to misrepresent the call.

    In the legal brief, the president’s lawyers mention Schiff’s fabricated version of the transcript as only one of a series of documented lies Schiff has told in the course of these proceedings. The significance of the series of lies is to show that the president did not receive fair treatment in the House investigation. Vox, it would seem, wishes to promote the idea that he did.


    1. So Republicans did have access during the deposition phase in the SCIF. Not all Republicans, but the neither did all Democrats.

      Schiff was advised not to parody the call. But he did and he announced that he was doing it. He was having a bit of fun. Something Trump does at every rally or press conference when he feels like it. But we all know it was a parody, so no big deal.

      If I recall Trump was invited to speak, with counsel, in the hearings but passed.

      Blizzard also means “blowing snow”, and that was exactly what the Trump attorneys did.

      Liked by 3 people

      1. The blizzard of facts thrown at Mr. Thomas is cleared in his mind by the snow blower of counterfactualness that is his genre. You dispute his facts and he asks if you dispute them specifically. Amazingly sad.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “Blizzard also means ‘blowing snow'”

      And that is exactly what your comment does. Are there any factual statements in my post that you specifically dispute?


      1. I did address both. Republicans had access to SCIF just like the Democrats.

        “Trump’s lawyers claimed Republicans didn’t have access to key information during House impeachment inquiry”

        This is true, you wrote. Then you wrote they technically had access. Well, which is the truth. Or is one a Trumpian “alternative truth”?

        I said it was a parody. You disagreed. So what’s the beef? Because you said it was a “parody” in quotes makes it not one? You are debating a subjective opinion.

        The blizzard comment was spot on.

        I answered your assertions with facts and a quip. You stole my quip, but I am a forgiving man.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. RE: “This is true, you wrote.”

        I wrote that it is true, as Trump’s lawyers claim, that Republicans didn’t have access to key information, because some didn’t.

        In the normal course of House proceedings, any member of Congress may sit in on any hearing in which they have an interest. By holding his hearing in the SCIF, Chairman Schiff made this standard courtesy impossible. The president’s lawyers argue this was an egregious violation of House rules, because there was no reason to restrict access to the hearing in this way.

        Vox, in other words, misrepresents the statement by Trump’s lawyers by calling it a falsehood.

        RE: “I said it was a parody. You disagreed.”

        Nope. I agree it was a parody. But parody, like paraphrase, is a type of fabrication. Thus, again, Vox misrepresents the statement made by Trump’s lawyers as a falsehood.

        RE: “You stole my quip, but I am a forgiving man.”

        Good for you, especially as there is no remedy.


  5. Back in 2016, when Dems decided to impeach Mr Trump, they had to know that he would not be removed. Of course, as a result of being impeached, Mr Trump’s fundraising has literally skyrocketed; furthermore, his base has expanded and it is even more united than it was in 2016. Like Mr Clinton, impeachment is making him stronger and again, Dems had to know that it would (2020 is now slam-dunk for him).

    Why, then, did they do it?

    I conclude that it was either to soothe their emotions and/or to prevent Ms Pelosi from being toppled from her speakership by the rabid, hyper-partisan haters.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s