impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[WhatTheBuck 28807]

14 minutes ago, pacman said:

One can't possibly imagine the level of corruption Trump will bring on if he makes it past this for another four years. You would have to have some level of depravity that I don't think possible except from someone like Trump who is morally corrupt to the bone.

I imagine he'll try to rule for life. 

[Js1 85602]

 

[WhatTheBuck 28807]

"I was just following orders."

[Guest Lobo]

“I didn’t know the scale of what was happening.”

[4th&Five 41600]

 

[Red Five 40898]

Is that flashcard a joke? Please tell me that doesn't really exist. 

[jimmyjazz 46228]

3 minutes ago, WhatTheBuck said:

"I was just following orders."

Sounds more ominous in German.

[jimmyjazz 46228]

Just now, Red Five said:

Is that flashcard a joke? Please tell me that doesn't really exist. 

Are you suggesting that Republican senators might be . . . snowflakes?

[Red Five 40898]

I mean.... they need a fucking flashcard to tell them to say things like "excuse me, I'm on my way to the senate floor"? 

Of course, it's the truth, so I guess I can see where that isn't exactly second nature. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Based on Matt Gaetz' little sex game and Dennis Hastert, they need to hand those out to the interns only make the cards bigger.

[hayden_horn 11365]

4 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Is that flashcard a joke? Please tell me that doesn't really exist. 

i....don't think it is. 

i mean, if you don't know how to politely tell someone to fuck off, how in the fuck did you get elected in the first place? i politely tell people to fuck off daily.

[Brisketexan 105444]

Just now, Red Five said:

I mean.... they need a fucking flashcard to tell them to say things like "excuse me, I'm on my way to the senate floor"? 

Of course, it's the truth, so I guess I can see where that isn't exactly second nature. 

Well, "excuse me, you're preventing me from violating my oath and betraying my country and the Constitution" isn't as catchy.

[TXSG8R 3362]

6 minutes ago, Lobo said:

“I didn’t know the scale of what was happening.”

"If the house had done their job and presented all of this"

[Queen Bitch 1692]

Happy accident, yes, but made me do that Wee Bey gif regardless.

[henrygandorf 29195]

12 minutes ago, Queen Bitch said:

Happy accident, yes, but made me do that Wee Bey gif regardless.

any time anyone asks about a delay, the response should be "this president breaks the law practically every day, so the longer we wait, the more shit comes out.  it's really about the math at this point."

also rich considering the gop was 'pushing' for the dems to try to compel the big 4-5 witnesses to testify, knowing courts would delay the process months and months.

"delaying is not ok, unless it's the delaying we had planned, because that type of delaying is totally different!"

[Goredho 17423]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You get it.  That's exactly how this unfolds.

Hell, here's a simple, horrifying picture: we've seen how little regard Trump and his cult have for the rule of law now.  Re-election will be a public endorsement that what they're doing is just fine, and indeed there are no consequences.  Imagine how unfettered they'll be THEN.

Thanks.  I'm going to extrapolate a bit on why I think thats an inevitability.  First, let's just all agree that impeachment does not result in removal and focus on the 2020 election.  This isn't a serious mathematical analysis, but I think it is close enough to see the odds are stacked against Trump losing the election. 

• There are 250,056,000 potential voters in the US.
• Trumps job approval rate has had a low of 35% and a high of 46%.  So let's use 40% -- below his current job approval rate -- which is 100,022,400 voters and call them his "base".
• That means from the 60% that either hate Trump or could go either way, there are 150,033,600 potential voters.  Let's call them the "opposition".
• His base votes at a very high rate.  They love him and they have bought into their role in this apocalyptic fight for America's soul.  Impeachment has simply galvanized them in their support of Trump.  Let's say they vote at 95%.  That's 95,021,280 votes.
• Since 2000, there have been 5 presidential elections with an average voter turnout of 54.96%.  The highest voter turnout was in 2008, when America had to also choose where to go after a disastrous Presidency.  They turned out at 58.2%.
• The 2018 midterm blue wave came from less than an 11% increase in turnout.
• So let's say we have the same turnout as 2008 PLUS the 11% increased turnout we saw in the 2018 blue wave AND an additional 5% turnout because we are naive optimists.  That's a 74.2% turnout which has not been seen in America since the 1896 presidential election.
• 74.2% turnout is 185,541,552 voters.  But his base turning out at 95% is 95,021,280 of those voters.  That leaves the opposition with 90,520,272 voters that turned out to vote against Trump.
• With those numbers, Trump wins 51.2% to 48.8% in the popular vote.
• This assumes no undue influence on the election, which we know is actively being sought by the President.
• Who knows how this translates to an electoral college map, but as we've seen the opposition votes are clustered in urban and suburban areas that the electoral college tilts the odds away from.

Again, this isn't a serious work of mathematics, but it does not have to be.  At best the odds are significantly less than a coin flip.  Property values on Brisket's ledge will be going up dramatically come November.

And the just-lay-back-and-enjoy-it Dems never forced anyone to testify who responded to their request with:

Edited January 16, 2020 by Goredho

[jimmyjazz 46228]

I know you said it wasn't a strict mathematical analysis, but I find it highly unlikely that Trump supporters will increase by 51% but the Trump opposition will only increase by 36%.  Combine that with the "small difference between large numbers" effect that swung key electoral votes Trump's way, and I just don't think it's possible to consider any particular scenario with any degree of confidence.

[Tuco 5084]

3 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I like your focus and explanation, after a while I lose track of which piece of the puzzle goes where.

So maybe they subpoena Harry Sargeant? He's not Gordon Sondland, which was some wishy washy testimony but trying once again to see if you can apply pressure at the joints?

What am I saying, Bill Barr would get that squashed wouldn't he?

 

I'm not up to speed on all of the document dump, but Sargeant wouldn't necessarily know much about some of the seedier shit.  Maybe he knew there was an effort to remove Yovanovich.  I'm not sure there would any reason to read him in on the effort to get dirt on Biden, unless he was being asked to finance something. 

You asked about translations.  This site has some good ones.  One in particular is pretty explicit from Lutshenko about trading the investigation for the removal of Yanovich.  (I do wish they just had the translations, instead of summaries.) 

Quote

Here we have Lutsenko telling Parnas he has evidence of payments from Burisma to Seneca (Hunter Biden’s firm) for half a million dollars. When Parnas says he can send them, Lutsenko replies “I’ll transmit them through the new ambassador :)”

 

[Goredho 17423]

20 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I know you said it wasn't a strict mathematical analysis, but I find it highly unlikely that Trump supporters will increase by 51% but the Trump opposition will only increase by 36%.  Combine that with the "small difference between large numbers" effect that swung key electoral votes Trump's way, and I just don't think it's possible to consider any particular scenario with any degree of confidence.

I could certainly prove to be wrong and I will be ecstatic if I am, @jimmyjazz.  It boils down to how strongly does that 40% that approves of Trump turn out?  How strongly does everyone else turn out to vote against him?  How are the numbers of those two populations massaged by the inevitable foreign election influence?

We'll all know one way or the other come November.  I'm going to stand by my assertion that the Dems have played this extremely poorly and that their efforts have not moved the needle nearly enough with that 60% to overcome Trump's rabid base and election meddling.  Unless something drastic happens, impeachment ends with a whimper and Trump stands a strong chance to get re-elected.

Edited January 16, 2020 by Goredho

[Irieguy 1059]

32 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Thanks.  I'm going to extrapolate a bit on why I think thats an inevitability.  First, let's just all agree that impeachment does not result in removal and focus on the 2020 election.  This isn't a serious mathematical analysis, but I think it is close enough to see the odds are stacked against Trump losing the election. 

• There are 250,056,000 potential voters in the US.
• Trumps job approval rate has had a low of 35% and a high of 46%.  So let's use 40% -- below his current job approval rate -- which is 100,022,400 voters and call them his "base".
• That means from the 60% that either hate Trump or could go either way, there are 150,033,600 potential voters.  Let's call them the "opposition".
• His base votes at a very high rate.  They love him and they have bought into their role in this apocalyptic fight for America's soul.  Impeachment has simply galvanized them in their support of Trump.  Let's say they vote at 95%.  That's 95,021,280 votes.
• Since 2000, there have been 5 presidential elections with an average voter turnout of 54.96%.  The highest voter turnout was in 2008, when America had to also choose where to go after a disastrous Presidency.  They turned out at 58.2%.
• The 2018 midterm blue wave came from less than an 11% increase in turnout.
• So let's say we have the same turnout as 2008 PLUS the 11% increased turnout we saw in the 2018 blue wave AND an additional 5% turnout because we are naive optimists.  That's a 74.2% turnout which has not been seen in America since the 1896 presidential election.
• 74.2% turnout is 185,541,552 voters.  But his base turning out at 95% is 95,021,280 of those voters.  That leaves the opposition with 90,520,272 voters that turned out to vote against Trump.
• With those numbers, Trump wins 51.2% to 48.8% in the popular vote.
• This assumes no undue influence on the election, which we know is actively being sought by the President.
• Who knows how this translates to an electoral college map, but as we've seen the opposition votes are clustered in urban and suburban areas that the electoral college tilts the odds away from.

Again, this isn't a serious work of mathematics, but it does not have to be.  At best the odds are significantly less than a coin flip.  Property values on Brisket's ledge will be going up dramatically come November.

And the just-lay-back-and-enjoy-it Dems never forced anyone to testify who responded to their request with:

Your math is shit. Not all of his 40% is hardcore Trump. Assuming 95% of the 40% vote is way off and skews the rest of your work. I appreciate your work but the people at 270 have done it. And done it much better. 

[Goredho 17423]

Acknowledged.  So you are happy with the Dem's efforts to expose the President's malfeasance and confident that the Dems have motivated enough people to offset the votes of his base that does turn out?

[Irieguy 1059]

Just now, Goredho said:

Acknowledged.  So you are happy with the Dem's efforts to expose the President's malfeasance and confident that the Dems have motivated enough people to offset the votes of his base that does turn out?

No. But if you are going to predict 2020 popular vote we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Just take 2016 results and adjust. Trump got 63M popular votes in 2016 and you have him getting 95M. L oh fucking L. A 32M increase. Horrible work. But electoral vote is the only thing that matters. 270 has done a good job and shows Democrats as a slight favorite. I agree with that. 

[Tuco 5084]

On the Parnas file dump, there should be two possible reasons for the courts to redact it: personal information, national security, or evidence of the crime.  There really shouldn't be any national security issues, and i doubt that Ahearn and Parnas had much of a personal relationship.  Parnas was arrested for funneling illegal contributions to America First Action, which Ahearn works for.  I'm betting there is considerable evidence of a crime being redacted. 

 

[Goredho 17423]

14 minutes ago, Irieguy said:

No. But if you are going to predict 2020 popular vote we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Just take 2016 results and adjust. Trump got 63M popular votes in 2016 and you have him getting 95M. L oh fucking L. A 32M increase. Horrible work. But electoral vote is the only thing that matters. 270 has done a good job and shows Democrats as a slight favorite. I agree with that. 

I apologize for offending the statistics gods.  So I'll come to your side.  The Dems are a slight favorite, before effects of any election fraud, influence, etc... that are actively being sought can be known.

The Dems are still failing to do much other than buckle against the GOP's efforts to obstruct the voter's awareness of what is transpiring to undermine their vote.

Make sure to wrap yourself tight in that cloak of statistical invulnerability

[Irieguy 1059]

4 minutes ago, Goredho said:

I apologize for offending the statistics gods.  So I'll come to your side.  The Dems are a slight favorite, before effects of any election fraud, influence, etc... that are actively being sought can be known.

The Dems are still failing to do much other than buckle against the GOP's efforts to obstruct the voter's awareness of what is transpiring to undermine their vote.

Make sure to wrap yourself tight in that cloak of statistical invulnerability

👍 No need to be defensive though. You produced bad numbers based on bad assumptions, it happens. But it needs to be cleared up. I’m not claiming invulnerability, but I could help so I did. No judgment on you. 

[Tuco 5084]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

I'm not up to speed on all of the document dump, but Sargeant wouldn't necessarily know much about some of the seedier shit.  Maybe he knew there was an effort to remove Yovanovich.  I'm not sure there would any reason to read him in on the effort to get dirt on Biden, unless he was being asked to finance something. 

Nevermind.  Sargeant was all in on this shit.  

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

On the Parnas file dump, there should be two possible reasons for the courts to redact it: personal information, national security, or evidence of the crime.  There really shouldn't be any national security issues, and i doubt that Ahearn and Parnas had much of a personal relationship.  Parnas was arrested for funneling illegal contributions to America First Action, which Ahearn works for.  I'm betting there is considerable evidence of a crime being redacted. 

 

Most of the black out boxes on the texts between Parnas and Harry Sargeant occur just prior to, during, and just after Ambassador Yovanovitch was smeared. I suppose Sargeant could've been asking Parnas where he should send the money since Sargeant was also bankrolling Lev and not just Firtash.

Is it normal for most people to know that an Ambassador is going to be ousted well in advance of the news even if it is something they've been working on for over a year? I mean all of this conversation between the two is only tangentially related to the Articles now in the Senate, but could it be used to bolster other testimony? They were texting back and forth in March prior to the Ukraine elections (the ones that the Ambassador had said the polls were showing Zelinsky as leading) and Lev would say things like, "Watch Hannity," or send him a just released news piece and then Sargeant would have a link to i.e. The Washington Examiner's article discussing Yovanovitch describing Trump’s nomination as “the end of the world.” John Solomon was critical and busy talking with Lutsenko. Yet remember, in March Yovanovitch was asked to extend her tour to 2020 and so the State Department hadn't gotten the memo yet. Parnas had told Trump back in 2018 that Yovanovitch was not friendly to his interests, so it all starts to roll up into a big ball of string. So the texts between the two at first seem like Lev is supplying Sargeant with information relevant to Sargeant's energy interests, but what could be in the black out boxes?

Stuff like this on March 21:

Lev: this wait is killing me

And then the next day, the 22nd:

Lev: It’s getting crazy but we will get it done.

Sargeant texts back: Ambassador?

Lev replies with a screenshot I can't read despite blowing it up to 400% but the following text says: He’s dealing with it now. Looks good for us.

He then texts the Rudy G and Jay Sekulow statement about Mueller Report.

The day after that, he sends the following:

Lev: She's gone.

Sargeant: Awesome!!

Huge blackout box.

Then quite a few links from Lev with articles relating to the stateside news regarding growing calls for Yovanovitch's removal.

Sargeant replies: She looks like agency to me

Lev: Believe me, she's gondo, call you soon.

March 25th

Lev: Team Trump dinner celebration I’m officially part of team trump tomorrow big day my brother I’ll call you tomorrow.

There's more, but not really of use or interest until you get to April, just after Rudy gave Pompeo his dossier. Remember, the first round of the elections in Ukraine were March 31st.

More black boxes at the beginning of April and then Lev texts Sargeant asking for money for cars.

Sargeant: don’t bother with this stuff pls. Drinking with MA.

Early April and more and more black boxes, then April 10 more black boxes followed by this:

Sargeant: Rudy there. Pete wants to complain about State. (State Department I'm assuming)

Lev: He will be here very soon

Sargeant: On way. Deepers out to kill (deep state lingo, funny)

Lev: I’m all in my brother. (texts him a pic) Waiting for you my brother.

Same day Lev sends another text: Please give me a call as soon as you have a chance my brother. I was just told that our trip just got cancelled???? I’m meeting with Rudy in 15-20 min I need to know what I’m talking about we have people scheduled to meet on Saturday in Vienna.

I don't know the exact date when the Ambassador received the call from her colleague discussing the security concern and Sargeant may not be useful from being involved to the extent that Parnas, et al were other than perhaps profiting from the intel, etc for his business interests, but it sure looks shady. I saw a news blurb that the Feds raided Hyde's home, but I wish they would dig deeper into Correia and Fruman if possible. There is just the tip of the iceberg feeling about the whole thing and those black boxes may not be anything of concern, but maybe you have insight?

Crazy rock n rolla

 

Edit to add: sorry, you posted while I was typing this long screed. Yea, I think he knows stuff, but the question is, does it help get the President removed in November?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 16, 2020 by Mrs Whiggins
Addition

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Oh, and the Pete to whom Harry S is referring almost has to be Pete Sessions, right? He's running for my District here in Texas in a crowded field. I don't think he is going to be at the next candidates forum as he wasn't at the last one either, but if he is, whoooo, I think I am going to go and ask him about this.

[Steamboat1874 4085]

3 hours ago, Queen Bitch said:

Happy accident, yes, but made me do that Wee Bey gif regardless.

A very underrated movie and quite entertaining.

[Tuco 5084]

A couple of things on the Sargeant communications:

- Lev indicated that Sargeant paying the bills was a loan.  So, my guess is that Sargeant was paying the bills because it was less conspicuous than Firtash sending bundles of money every few months.  The blacked out sections may have to do with guarantees on those loans, which would could be part of the money laundering/campaign donation violations, particularly if Sargeant was also directing payments to candidates based on Firtash guarantees.  Keep in mind, Firtash and Parnas were alerted to the complaint on the campaign finance compliant several months ago (as part of the process), so they couldn't continue to follow that path.  Funneling donations through Sargeant would make sense, as he has acted as a "bundler" previously. (Harry Sargeant listed as a bundler for McCain in 2008, for 500k.) 

- The messages around Sept 10 are interesting:

9/10

Lev: Bolton is out

Lev: Pompeo is next

Harry: Awesome!!!!

Harry:(Missed call)

9/11

Lev: Now we know who fucked everything up

Harry: Fucking idiot Bolton

Lev: Yep

 

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

9 minutes ago, Steamboat1874 said:

A very underrated movie and quite entertaining.

Oh my gosh! I love watching both of them, I have to see this. Thanks for posting that, that is two movies in two days I have now learned about and will watch.

6 minutes ago, Tuco said:

Harry: Fucking idiot Bolton

That was my hands down  favorite line after wading through all those pages of texts. Wish the idiot would do the right thing, but I doubt it.

So, Sargeant gets off because he just supplies the money? He's been mixed up in so much stuff going way back. What a greedy SOB. Makes his money off of government contracts and overcharging. A Marine no less. Army Col. Vindman puts him to shame.

[Tuco 5084]

3 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Oh my gosh! I love watching both of them, I have to see this. Thanks for posting that, that is two movies in two days I have now learned about and will watch.

That was my hands down  favorite line after wading through all those pages of texts. Wish the idiot would do the right thing, but I doubt it.

So, Sargeant gets off because he just supplies the money? He's been mixed up in so much stuff going way back. What a greedy SOB. Makes his money off of government contracts and overcharging. A Marine no less. Army Col. Vindman puts him to shame.

Sargeant gets off because he's wealthy and well connected.  Turns out he resigned from the Florida GOP finance chair (money raiser) because one of his employees, Ala'a al-Ali, was indicted for making illegal contributions to McCain and Crist (Florida governor). 

Quote

Ali allegedly conspired with others to recruit Southern California residents to make contributions to the four campaigns with promises that the “contributors” would be reimbursed. Ali allegedly reimbursed the “contributors” with either cash or checks drawn on his person account.

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

We really (impossible now due to SCOTUS) need to get Citizens United overturned and money as far away from campaigns as is feasibly possible. Americans should rise up and say enough. But we don't.

Anyone for a Gin Fizz on the lanai? Today's Thursday and I always have a cocktail on days that end in 'y.'

[Tuco 5084]

More on Sargeant.

I can't tell if this is a separate scandal from Ali, or the same thing in which Ali eventually was the only one indicted.  

Quote

Last month, McCain's campaign returned some $50,000 in donations after The Washington Post and New York Times questioned the validity of several checks sent from Arab Americans in California -- donations solicited by Sargeant's longtime business partner, Mustafa Abu Naba'a, a Jordanian citizen. The campaign warned Sargeant donors that they can't be repaid for contributions, and that only U.S. citizens can donate.
 

Otto was mentioned in the texts.  Could be Otto Reich, or it could just some random Otto. 

Quote

n 2006, Sargeant hired lobbyist Otto Reich, a former ambassador and State Department official, to help gain congressional support for one company, Trigeant Ltd., then in a dispute with the Defense Department over a $48 million fuel contract....

Trigeant lawyer Ronald Uscher said Reich lobbied Sen. Mel Martinez, a member of the Armed Services Committee and, like Reich, once a Bush administration official...

After the meeting, a Martinez staffer called the Defense Department at least once on the company's behalf. Martinez said he was only helping the company gather information from a stonewalling bureaucracy. He said this was the ''routine'' assistance he often gives Florida businesses, and he didn't try to sway the Pentagon's stance....

Trigeant filed a lawsuit in April 2007 saying the Defense Department violated the contract and drove up the company's costs. Three months later, Sargeant and his wife gave $50,000 to the Republican National Committee -- then led by Martinez.

In September 2007, the federal government agreed to pay Trigeant a $3.2 million settlement. Uscher said the company did not profit on that contract.
 

And he gets help from the Embassy in the DR:

Quote

Before the dispute, Sargeant's company was ''effectively the sole transporter of Venezuelan asphalt,'' selling to several Caribbean and Central American countries.

One of those countries was the Dominican Republic, the current home of Abu Naba'a, Sargeant's partner. Dominican press reports say that country canceled a contract with Sargeant Petroleum earlier this year -- prompting U.S. Ambassador P. Robert Fannin to intervene on the company's behalf in a letter to Dominican President Leonel Fernández.

 

[henrygandorf 29195]

3 hours ago, Goredho said:

• There are 250,056,000 potential voters in the US.
• Trumps job approval rate has had a low of 35% and a high of 46%.  So let's use 40% -- below his current job approval rate -- which is 100,022,400 voters and call them his "base".
• That means from the 60% that either hate Trump or could go either way, there are 150,033,600 potential voters.  Let's call them the "opposition".
• His base votes at a very high rate.  They love him and they have bought into their role in this apocalyptic fight for America's soul.  Impeachment has simply galvanized them in their support of Trump.  Let's say they vote at 95%.  That's 95,021,280 votes.
• Since 2000, there have been 5 presidential elections with an average voter turnout of 54.96%.  The highest voter turnout was in 2008, when America had to also choose where to go after a disastrous Presidency.  They turned out at 58.2%.
• The 2018 midterm blue wave came from less than an 11% increase in turnout.
• So let's say we have the same turnout as 2008 PLUS the 11% increased turnout we saw in the 2018 blue wave AND an additional 5% turnout because we are naive optimists.  That's a 74.2% turnout which has not been seen in America since the 1896 presidential election.
• 74.2% turnout is 185,541,552 voters.  But his base turning out at 95% is 95,021,280 of those voters.  That leaves the opposition with 90,520,272 voters that turned out to vote against Trump.
• With those numbers, Trump wins 51.2% to 48.8% in the popular vote.
• This assumes no undue influence on the election, which we know is actively being sought by the President.
• Who knows how this translates to an electoral college map, but as we've seen the opposition votes are clustered in urban and suburban areas that the electoral college tilts the odds away from.

i'm willing to acknowledge that duh, this isn't some expert mathematical analysis, but i think your numbers or assumptions are flawed in this way:

you project a 74% turnout (which obviously is impossible) of 250mm voters, which is 185mm.  that's the number you need to take your 40% from.  you can't take your 40% trump support from 250mm but the opposition % from the 185mm.  what you're assuming is that approving of trump's job over the phone equates to getting off your couch and actually pulling a lever, whereas the disapproving will say meh and sit home.  it doesn't work that way.

if you're gonna use these absurd numbers, at least be fair about it.  40% of 185mm is 74mm votes. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

1 minute ago, Tuco said:

 

Otto was mentioned in the texts.  Could be Otto Reich, or it could just some random Otto.

Yes he was. I had no clue who it was so thanks for the info. I've watched enough Le Carre movies to know there are no random Ottos.

This guy is rich as all get out, but geez is screwing over taxpayers and other countries really all that rewarding to your psyche?

[henrygandorf 29195]

5 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

i'm willing to acknowledge that duh, this isn't some expert mathematical analysis, but i think your numbers or assumptions are flawed in this way:

you project a 74% turnout (which obviously is impossible) of 250mm voters, which is 185mm.  that's the number you need to take your 40% from.  you can't take your 40% trump support from 250mm but the opposition % from the 185mm.  what you're assuming is that approving of trump's job over the phone equates to getting off your couch and actually pulling a lever, whereas the disapproving will say meh and sit home.  it doesn't work that way.

if you're gonna use these absurd numbers, at least be fair about it.  40% of 185mm is 74mm votes. 

also there isn't a projection out there that has him winning the popular vote.  he'll likely lose by 5-6 points, but could still thread the needle a second time.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Make sure people you know check their registration in their state then. I expect a LOT of purges after state deadlines have passed for both the primary and then the general elections. Then it's too late.

[Goredho 17423]

18 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

also there isn't a projection out there that has him winning the popular vote.  he'll likely lose by 5-6 points, but could still thread the needle a second time.

Yep.  I have acknowledged the failings of my math and inputs.  Anyone's faith in professional projections after their performance in 2016 is puzzling to me, however.  It is almost like they are missing a variable...

Edited January 16, 2020 by Goredho

[Biff Tannen 45750]

40 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

We really (impossible now due to SCOTUS) need to get Citizens United overturned and money as far away from campaigns as is feasibly possible. Americans should rise up and say enough. But we don't.

Anyone for a Gin Fizz on the lanai? Today's Thursday and I always have a cocktail on days that end in 'y.'

Gin Rickey for me, thanks.

[henrygandorf 29195]

2 minutes ago, Goredho said:

Yep.  I have acknowledged the failings of my math and inputs.  Anyone's faith in professional projections after their performance in 2016 is puzzling to me, however.  It is almost like they are missing a variable...

overall it was actually fairly accurate.  a few states were off, and that's where it was decided.

but looking back, it was shockingly close (even though everyone thought it was way way off).

[Biff Tannen 45750]

I've gone cross-eyed with this Lev Parnas stuff.  WTF is happening?

[Brisketexan 105444]

22 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've gone cross-eyed with this Lev Parnas stuff.  WTF is happening?

Summary: we live inside a cartoon written by a drug-addled chimp who's the product of Soviet mind-control experiments, projected onto a shit-smeared screen, while Yoko Ono music blares in the background.

Also, everything is on fire.

And Republicans are fucking thrilled about it all.

[Tuco 5084]

24 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've gone cross-eyed with this Lev Parnas stuff.  WTF is happening?

He's dumped ~400 pages of documents, much of it is in Ukrainian.  

To me, the biggest revelations have been:

- the level of involvement Parnas had with the Republican money machine.  He was texting regularly Ahearn (America First Action PAC) and Tom Hicks (previously America First Action, now RNC co-chair).  

- there was very obvious quid pro quo with Lutshenko - investigating Burisma in exchange for Yovanovich's firing. 

- Hyde indicated he had people trailing Yovanovich.  But it's possible Hyde is just a nutcase.  The responses from Parnas seem fairly uninterested with Hyde's comments, as he just spammed back with news articles. Parnas could have been covering his ass, or that he had no interest in what Hyde was selling.  It doesn't make much sense Parnas would need Hyde to trail Yovanovich, considering some of the players involved.  But he opened a PR firm in 2018, and it's possible Parnas hired him, or was going to hire him, to push help Yovanovich out.  

Edited January 16, 2020 by Tuco

[Captainant 27828]

30 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I've gone cross-eyed with this Lev Parnas stuff.  WTF is happening?

I'll shamelessly steal this well-written and documented breakdown of the Lev Parnas stuff:

Who is Lev Parnas? President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani was working with associates in Ukraine to fabricate dirt on a domestic political rival while attempting to discredit the Russian election interference outlined in the Mueller Report. Giuliani's associates have since been arrested by U.S. authorities and charged for engaging in an illegal scheme to funnel foreign money into American political campaigns. While working with Giuliani, Lev Parnas was simultaneously working on behalf of Pro-Russia Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash who is currently detained in Vienna fighting extradition to the U.S. on bribery and racketeering charges.

• Several associates of the President's personal attorney have been arrested and charged by the Justice Department for violating campaign finance laws. Giuliani's associates Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were engaged in a scheme to funnel foreign money into American political campaigns so they could buy influence in the U.S.. They were arrested and charged by the Justice Department.^[1]

Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, David Correia, and Andrey Kukushkin, the defendants, conspired to circumvent the federal laws against foreign influence by engaging in a scheme to funnel foreign money to candidates for federal and state office so that the defendants could buy potential influence with candidates, campaigns, and the candidates' governments. The defendants concealed the scheme from candidates, campaigns, federal regulators, and the public by entering into secret agreements, laundering foreign money through bank accounts in the names of limited liability corporations, and through the use of straw donors (also known as "conduits" or "straw contributors") who purported to make legal campaign contributions in their own names, rather than in the name of the true source of the funds.

• They tried to flee the U.S. to possibly Vienna, Austria.^[2]

Mr. Giuliani said Thursday that Messrs. Parnas and Fruman were headed to Vienna, Austria, on Wednesday evening for reasons related to their business. He said the two men had also left the country about two weeks ago and had traveled to Vienna between three and six times in the last two months. He said he had been scheduled to meet with the two when they were to return to Washington within days.

• Around the same time his associates were arrested at Dulles airport, Giuliani told a reporter that he was about to fly out to Vienna.^[3]

• A Pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch is currently detained in Vienna, Austria and has been fighting extradition since 2014. Dmytro Firtash is fighting extradition to the U.S. on bribery and racketeering charges. He has seized upon Trump's lies and attacks against Biden as a way to fight extradition.^[4] Rudy Giuliani's indicted associate Lev Parnas was working on behalf of Firtash.^[5] Firtash was coordinating with American conservative journalists, such as John Solomon, and was sharing documents with Giuliani that make controversial allegations against Mueller and Joe Biden. Giuliani shared this information on American conservative media outlets exclaiming that the witness he was relying on was none other than the thoroughly discredited and corrupt former Ukrainian Prosector General Viktor Shokin.^[6] Furthermore, pro-Russia oligarch Dmytro Firtash has hired Fox news regulars and ardent supporters of President Trump, Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova, as his legal representation.^[7]

In his frequent appearances on cable news, Giuliani has presented some of these documents to the American public as evidence for his claims of wrongdoing by Mueller and Biden. The key document is an affidavit from a former Ukrainian prosecutor who accuses Biden of corruption. “The witness I’m relying on,” Giuliani told Fox News on Oct. 6, was the prosecutor Viktor Shokin. “That’s the affidavit I put out,” Giuliani added. He did not mention that the affidavit was obtained by the Firtash legal team. At the beginning of the document, Shokin writes that he is making the statement “at the request of lawyers acting for Dmitry Firtash.”

...Firtash has established close ties to the former mayor of New York City in part by recruiting several of Giuliani’s associates. In July the oligarch hired two lawyers who have been helping Giuliani in his campaign to discredit Trump’s critics: Victoria Toensing and Joseph DiGenova, a married couple Trump considered hiring in 2018 as part of his private legal team. Best known as diehard defenders of Trump on Fox News, the couple has combed through the oligarch’s case files and used some of them in the effort to defend Trump on television and in the press.

• We have learned that President Trump removed Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch from her post following complaints from Giuliani and his associates.^[8] Former Republican congressman Pete Sessions began to attack Ambassador Yovanovitch on conservative media outlets. From recent indictments we have learned that Pete Sessions was being funded by Giuliani's associates Parnas and Fruman.^[9] Parnas and Fruman have been indicted by the DoJ for trying to bribe American politicians. Furthermore, we know Lev Parnas was working for a pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarch that's currently fighting extradition to the U.S. for bribery and racketeering charges. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch was a career public servant that supported anti-corruption initiatives in Ukraine, however she was removed from her position.^[10] Under the direction of President Trump, Giuliani and his associates attempted to pressure the Ukrainian government to discredit Russian election interference. Moreover, President Trump attempted to pressure the newly elected Ukrainian President to publicly announce a fabricated investigation into Trump's domestic political rival on CNN.^[11]

---

1) United States District Court Southern District of New York - United States of America v. Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman, David Correia, and Andrey Kukushkin

2) Wall Street Journal - Two Giuliani Associates Who Helped Him on Ukraine Charged With Campaign-Finance Violations: Prosecutors say Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman were part of a conspiracy to funnel foreign money into U.S. elections

3) The Atlantic - The Mystery of Rudy Giuliani’s Vienna Trip

4) Foreign Policy - Giuliani’s Claims Spread to Another Ukraine Corruption Case

5) Reuters - Indicted Giuliani associate worked on behalf of Ukrainian oligarch Firtash

6) Kyiv Post - Azarov, Shokin, Lutsenko: A trio that only certain foreign journalists find credible

7) TIME - Exclusive: How a Ukrainian Oligarch Wanted by U.S. Authorities Helped Giuliani Attack Biden

😎 Wall Street Journal - Trump Ordered Ukraine Ambassador Removed After Complaints From Giuliani, Others

9) Roll Call - Former Rep. Pete Sessions met with indicted Giuliani associates, accepted donations

10) NPR - How Former Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch Became A Target In Ukraine

11) NPR - STATEMENT OF DAVID A. HOLMES U.S. EMBASSY KYIV, DEPARTMENT OF STATE BEFORE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE CONCERNING THE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

3 minutes ago, Tuco said:

- Hyde indicated he had people trailing Yovanovich.  But it's possible Hyde is just a nutcase.  The responses from Parnas seem fairly uninterested with Hyde's comments, as he just spammed back with news articles. Parnas could have been covering his ass, or that he had no interest in what Hyde was selling.  It doesn't make much sense Parnas would need Hyde to trail Yovanovich, considering some of the players involved.  But he opened a PR firm in 2018, and it's possible Parnas hired him, or was going to hire him, to push help Yovanovich out.  

Hyde is definitely a nutcase, and perhaps an alcoholic, but the Feds going through his home and business may find more of those pics that Parnas et al posted that show them plus Rudy plus Igor sharing cigars and drinks at one of Trump's hotels. In addition, his Facebook has supposedly been scrubbed (he said it was hacked, but it's hard to tell what is truth and what is fiction with stuff like that) as well as most of his LinkedIn, but Hyde has some weird fundraising and PR firm connections apparently. Either way, once the Ambassador was removed, he was going to be cut loose. It is interesting the whole bit about him being arrested at Trump Doral saying, that "a hit man was out to get him," Projecting? Get a little too close to what the real deal gangster life is like? Or he's just your average nutcase grifter.

[DDD Dad 14352]

28 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Summary: we live inside a cartoon written by a drug-addled chimp who's the product of Soviet mind-control experiments, projected onto a shit-smeared screen, while Yoko Ono music blares in the background.

Also, everything is on fire.

And Republicans are fucking thrilled about it all.

And I'm doing fucking Dry January.

[HornPhD 1369]

19 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

And I'm doing fucking Dry January.

Is High January possible?

[DDD Dad 14352]

Just now, HornPhD said:

Is High January possible?

I'm strongly considering giving it the old college try.

[Anastasis 23492]

1 minute ago, HornPhD said:

Is High January possible?

Why yes, yes it is.