2020 Presidential Election

[dudog84]

How many people would you go to jail for? How many would go to jail for you? I'm not sure that Trump's list is much longer than any of ours.

Mine might be longer than most, 'cause I've got friends in low places. Lame attempt at humor, I'm a bit sick to my stomach this morning.

[left_hook_lacey]

I think this is an analogy fail. Is Trump supposed to be Peter and Rudy is Jesus? Or do I have that backwards. Either way, it's a bit uncomfortable to think about.

Trumps Twitter Feed could be a good indicator as any to what any of this means. If he keeps on with his normal mantra of "Fake News, Sad" or "Witchhunt" I think he believes nothing will happen.

If he starts going full scorched earth, or even more telling, deathly silent on Twitter, I think someone is in his ear telling him this is bad news for him and Rudy.

[sagegrouse]

Pearl clutching {snort}. Thanks for that visual. Now I can't get Lindsey Graham out of my head.

Re bold, I disagree. Gore was sitting VP in a strong economy. I don't remember any scandal linked to him. Despite Clinton's poll numbers, I think the whole thing brought Gore down. 2000 should have been a slam dunk like H.W. Bush following Reagan. I think Clinton's positive poll numbers were as much against the perceived silliness of the impeachment grounds as an endorsement of him.

Let me quote commentators at the time:

The Gore campaign refused to ask Bill Clinton to campaign for him. Well, WJC campaigned extensively for Hillary in NY, and while she was ahead by three points when he started, she ended up winning by ten.

At the conclusion of Clinton's term, he had a 65 percent approval rating IIRC (which might be a first). Winning either Arkansas (Clinton's state) or Tennessee (Gore's home state) would have flipped the election, making Florida superfluous.

Gore and Lieberman had four debates with Bush and Cheney -- they lost every one of them. Odd, in that gore had done well in prior debates, such as against Ross Perot on NAFTA and in the VP debates from two prior campaigns against Quayle and Jack Kemp.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Let me quote commentators at the time:

The Gore campaign refused to ask Bill Clinton to campaign for him. Well, WJC campaigned extensively for Hillary in NY, and while she was ahead by three points when he started, she ended up winning by ten.

At the conclusion of Clinton's term, he had a 65 percent approval rating IIRC (which might be a first). Winning either Arkansas (Clinton's state) or Tennessee (Gore's home state) would have flipped the election, making Florida superfluous.

Gore and Lieberman had four debates with Bush and Cheney -- they lost every one of them. Odd, in that gore had done well in prior debates, such as against Ross Perot on NAFTA and in the VP debates from two prior campaigns against Quayle and Jack Kemp.

Gore had some strong policies, but had all the charisma of a lawn chair. "Climate change" seemed like such a silly priority back then...

[JasonEvans]

Folks, let me caution you against posting your own personal judgement on the Whistleblower complaint as I am sure those who support the president and those who dislike him will see very different things in that report. I know it is difficult, but lets try to maintain an even keel as much as we can, ok?

The complaint does seem damning on its surface, but it is a one-sided document that contains no chance for rebuttal or explanation by the White House. It is going to be very interesting to see how the opinion polls react to the news of the past couple days. We probably won't have a good sense of this until early next week, at least.

[golfinesquire]

That's the dilemma. Trump is really strong with the base, so if you are a R you don't want to cross him. But Trump has polled poorly in general polls so there is concern that he will just bring everyone down with him like (arguably) 2018.

Hence, lots of congressional R retirements in 2018 and more coming in 2020.

Correct. The fact that Trump is so strong with his base is another reason why the Republicans have no use for Mike Pence. He is almost universally disliked and does not have the cult of personality that Trump has. There was some talk that as soon as Trump signed the new tax bill, the Republicans would find a way to get rid of him (i.e. impeachment or threat of impeachment leading to resignation). That clearly has not happened. Part of it, I think, is that they saw that Congressmen who tried to distance themselves from him ended up losing their seats. They are caught riding the proverbial tiger. Having gotten on, they can't quite figure out a good way to get off.

[golfinesquire]

Folks, let me caution you against posting your own personal judgement on the Whistleblower complaint as I am sure those who support the president and those who dislike him will see very different things in that report. I know it is difficult, but lets try to maintain an even keel as much as we can, ok?

The complaint does seem damning on its surface, but it is a one-sided document that contains no chance for rebuttal or explanation by the White House. It is going to be very interesting to see how the opinion polls react to the news of the past couple days. We probably won't have a good sense of this until early next week, at least.

The one thing I would quibble with is that the White House will have no chance to rebut. Of course, they will. Trump will be tweeting and others within his circle will be tweeting. In fact, they are a bit in the cat bird seat. They are not under oath and so can lie with impunity. So, their version, story, honest rebuttal or however you want to phrase it will be out there and easily accessible to the public.

[JasonEvans]

The one thing I would quibble with is that the White House will have no chance to rebut. Of course, they will. Trump will be tweeting and others within his circle will be tweeting. In fact, they are a bit in the cat bird seat. They are not under oath and so can lie with impunity. So, their version, story, honest rebuttal or however you want to phrase it will be out there and easily accessible to the public.

I may have phrased it poorly but what I meant was that the document released today contains only one side of the story. The complaint does not include a rebuttal or response. I agree that Trump will have a chance to refute the claims in it in the future. Sorry if that was not clear.

[OldPhiKap]

To be fair, the memorandum of transcript released by the White House itself yesterday -- as well as the public statements of Trump and Giuliani -- confirm the broad parts of this whistleblower report. I have not heard any defense that the facts as broadly alleged are not true, and in fact the principals themselves admit the substance of the allegations.

Aren't we just quibbling over new details, like the allegation that there is a verbatim transcript that was locked down by the White House?

[bundabergdevil]

Pearl clutching {snort}. Thanks for that visual. Now I can't get Lindsey Graham out of my head.

Re bold, I disagree. Gore was sitting VP in a strong economy. I don't remember any scandal linked to him. Despite Clinton's poll numbers, I think the whole thing brought Gore down. 2000 should have been a slam dunk like H.W. Bush following Reagan. I think Clinton's positive poll numbers were as much against the perceived silliness of the impeachment grounds as an endorsement of him.

I may not have worded my comments well. My general feeling is that Clinton's scandal made things more difficult on Gore even if it was because he had to make the decision about whether to campaign w/ Bill or not. Put another way: the Gore campaign would have preferred if the Lewinsky scandal had never happened.

Hell of a limb I'm going out on, I know!

[bundabergdevil]

To be fair, the memorandum of transcript released by the White House itself yesterday -- as well as the public statements of Trump and Giuliani -- confirm the broad parts of this whistleblower report. I have not heard any defense that the facts as broadly alleged are not true, and in fact the principals themselves admit the substance of the allegations.

Aren't we just quibbling over new details, like the allegation that there is a verbatim transcript that was locked down by the White House?

A key part of influencing public perception in all of this will be whether the various administration officials that came to the whistle blower will themselves go public. This administration has been rife with leaks but even the officials that have left or been forced out or indicted have been surprisingly tight lipped in their comments about the administration. There are a few notable exceptions.

The more actual faces - versus anonymous sources and whistle blowers - there are to this, the more I would think it would impact public opinion.

I don't have a whole lot of insight into Rudy Giuliani's life and times other than his national presence as "America's Mayor" during 9/11 but, boy, what has he been thinking? If there is one thing people close to Trump must know by this point it's that he'll turn on you to his benefit on a dime, even if you've previously been loyal.

[CameronBornAndBred]

To be fair, the memorandum of transcript released by the White House itself yesterday -- as well as the public statements of Trump and Giuliani -- confirm the broad parts of this whistleblower report. I have not heard any defense that the facts as broadly alleged are not true, and in fact the principals themselves admit the substance of the allegations.

Aren't we just quibbling over new details, like the allegation that there is a verbatim transcript that was locked down by the White House?

WH and supporters seem to be saying it's all true, but so what? We are allowed to do that.

[OldPhiKap]

WH and supporters seem to be saying it's all true, but so what? We are allowed to do that.

Sure, and hope my comment was not taken to state otherwise. My comment was in reference to the notion that this is a one-sided document without any chance of rebuttal. There is no "rebuttal" of facts that are stipulated to by both sides. Which, other than some new details, seems to be the case. Trump admits it; Giuliani admits it; the memorandum of transcript speaks for itself.

Sorry if I did not articulate my point well, my bad.

[Jeffrey]

WH and supporters seem to be saying it's all true, but so what? We are allowed to do that.

IMO, a fair legal test on the "we are allowed" theory is replacing Biden with another individual. What if Trump had instead requested an investigation on Sundar Pichai? Should he then be impeached?

[PackMan97]

IMO, a fair legal test on the "we are allowed" theory is replacing Biden with another individual. What if Trump had instead requested an investigation on Sundar Pichai? Should he then be impeached?

What if it were Roy Williams? It might just be enough to win my vote! Can the Ukrainians do what the NCAA could not?

[golfinesquire]

IMO, a fair legal test on the "we are allowed" theory is replacing Biden with another individual. What if Trump had instead requested an investigation on Sundar Pichai? Should he then be impeached?

Well, not exactly. Since the concern is that the president was asking for assistance in influencing our election by asking for help in digging up dirt on a rival, that would not be present if he was making the same request about the head of Google. It may still be a potentially impeachable offense, depending on why he wanted that information and I know I am not familiar enough with the relevant laws to know whether the reason for the request is an element of whatever crime is under consideration. Bottom line, though, given the narrative out there, this is not an apples to apples comparison.

[CameronBornAndBred]

IMO, a fair legal test on the "we are allowed" theory is replacing Biden with another individual. What if Trump had instead requested an investigation on Sundar Pichai? Should he then be impeached?

But Dems toss out "What if this were President Obama?" all the time, and that never carries any weight.
Another defense seems to be that the whistleblower is a second hand witness. His/her reporting of the phone call being spot on doesn't seem to matter much.

[dudog84]

IMO, a fair legal test on the "we are allowed" theory is replacing Biden with another individual. What if Trump had instead requested an investigation on Sundar Pichai? Should he then be impeached?

I guess you're not a lawyer. OPK said it best upthread: mens rea.

[Jeffrey]

Well, not exactly. Since the concern is that the president was asking for assistance in influencing our election by asking for help in digging up dirt on a rival, that would not be present if he was making the same request about the head of Google. It may still be a potentially impeachable offense, depending on why he wanted that information and I know I am not familiar enough with the relevant laws to know whether the reason for the request is an element of whatever crime is under consideration. Bottom line, though, given the narrative out there, this is not an apples to apples comparison.

IMO, there are two issues:

1. Can Trump do it regarding any U.S. citizen?

2. Why did Trump want the information?

Has Trump (I'm not really watching this) admitted he "was asking for assistance in influencing our election by asking for help in digging up dirt on a rival"?

[Jeffrey]

I guess you're not a lawyer.

I'm definitely not a lawyer. I'm a banker, so still hated by many Americans and a couple candidates.