[AMV] Amerikaanse politiek #682: Righteous Anger

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 20:44 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Republikeinen steunde Biden in wat hij deed, wat precies hadden zij er dan bij te winnen?

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 20:49 schreef The_End het volgende:

[..]

Het is wel bewezen waarom Biden het deed.

quote:

The United States will deepen collaboration with our European allies and partners to confront forces threatening to undermine our common values, security interests, and shared vision. The United States and Europe will work together to counter Russian subversion and aggression.

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 20:51 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Ik heb democraten zien pleiten voor een fysieke barrière tussen Mexico en de VS.
Sinds Trump aan de macht is pleitten ze voor het tegenovergestelde.
Dit kleine feitje beantwoord je vraag wel lijkt mij.
Trump moet falen dat is het enige wat telt, en elke strohalm word aangegrepen om dat te bewerkstelligen. De rationaliteit is compleet verdwenen en helaas geld hetzelfde voor de mensen hier in dit topic die de conclusie al hebben getrokken dat Trump het deed uit persoonlijk gewin.

Disclaimer: Ik sluit het helemaal niet uit dat Trump het deed uit persoonlijk gewin.

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 20:52 schreef Chivaz het volgende:

[..]

Uiteraard, het was immers een administratie zonder schandalen. Althans dat is wat de media beweert.

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 20:54 schreef Tweek het volgende:

[..]

Typisch, geen antwoord geven omdat de feiten niet in je wereldbeeld passen.

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 20:42 schreef Ulx het volgende:

twitter:

mattzap twitterde op woensdag 13-11-2019 om 20:32:30 ‘I don’t remember’ Trump asking for news conference clearing him of wrongdoing in Ukraine call, Barr says https://t.co/ODsigGXREn reageer retweet

Uiteraard niet.

twitter:

dsamuelsohn twitterde op woensdag 13-11-2019 om 20:17:21 @wikileaks “The committee report is not accurate.” - That's Jonathan Kravis, who for first time I'm aware is taking issue a section of the House GOP Intelligence Committee report on Russian interference back in 2016. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 21:09 schreef Kijkertje het volgende:

[..]

Dus niet een duidelijk "Nee dat is niet gebeurd" maar het bekende "I don't remember"

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 13-11-2019 om 21:09:38 Rep. Peter Welch responds to Jim Jordan: "I'd say to my colleague, I'd be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there." reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 13 november 2019 21:17 schreef The_End het volgende:
Die Taylor is een goed mens.

twitter:

kylegriffin1 twitterde op woensdag 13-11-2019 om 23:00:31 "Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee and a GOP counsel ... spent much of their allotted time driving at a number of talking points aimed at muddying the waters. Their arguments, though, relied on a series of obvious logical fallacies." https://t.co/KNMEGtLucd reageer retweet

quote:

The public impeachment hearings into President Trump are a difficult prospect for Republicans. On the one hand, many of them are clearly uncomfortable with Trump asking for foreign investigations of political rivals and don’t believe in the baseless conspiracy theories he was pushing. On the other hand, they need to fill what will amount to dozens of hours publicly doing something to defend him.

On Wednesday, we saw the uneven result.

Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee and a GOP counsel who began the questioning spent much of their allotted time driving at a number of talking points aimed at muddying the waters. Their arguments, though, relied on a series of obvious logical fallacies. Indeed, the fact that the witnesses themselves didn’t point this out is a testament to the fact that these aren’t the partisan deep-staters that Trump has alleged they are.

SPOILER

Om spoilers te kunnen lezen moet je zijn ingelogd. Je moet je daarvoor eerst gratis Registreren. Ook kun je spoilers niet lezen als je een ban hebt.

The last mainstay of the GOP’s defense was that corruption is endemic in Ukraine and that the company Hunter Biden worked for, Burisma Holdings, has significant issues. Both are true. Kent in particular testified to a number of reservations the U.S. government and he personally had about Burisma. He has also testified that he raised concerns with then-Vice President Biden’s office in 2015 about the appearance of a conflict of interest when Hunter Biden’s employment began. The whole thing reinforced that Hunter Biden’s employment was problematic and that there might be a real reason to investigate Burisma.

What Republicans did not do, however, is ever actually connect that to Trump’s request for an investigation.

Trump explicitly asked Zelensky to not just investigate Burisma or Hunter Biden’s employment; he asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s intervention to get a top Ukrainian prosecutor removed. But Joe Biden did so at a time when that prosecutor wasn’t actively investigating Burisma. And in fact, many Western leaders wanted him removed precisely because he wasn’t tough enough on corruption.

That last one is telling. Republicans are doing plenty to try to poke holes in the prevailing Democratic narratives, but they’re rarely connecting their arguments to the actual facts on the ground. They’re essentially trying to muddy the waters without actually defending Trump’s actions. They spent very little time Wednesday dwelling upon what Trump actually requested and what the aides around him did to make it happen.

And they’ve still got a lot more time to fill before this is over.