Hit enter after type your search item
Wzy Word

HERE ARE THE WORLD'S NEWS

WATCH: Breaking Down Unhinged Pro-Trump Propaganda & Lies

/
/
/
668 Views
img

I'm going to try something today that's very important and will certainly be useful, but I don't know how much people, people will be entertained by it, which is that I'm going to go through some of the propaganda that we've been hearing from Republicans who defend Donald Trump and are of course against his impeachment conviction in the current Senate impeachment trial And bear with me because I do think this is going to shed a ton of light on what we've been seeing

And it's also going to show you how the pro Trump right is developing their strategy around disconfirming the public on the impeachment of Donald Trump And what we saw during the Senate impeachment trial is that during the breaks, when they have these 15 to 45 minute breaks in the proceeding, senators and members of the house will sometimes talk to the press and basically the term Gish Gallop is representative of what we've been seeing in the Senate trial, uh, from Donald Trump's lawyers and also outside of it from Republican lawmakers During these little press avails Gish Gallop is defined as a technique used during debate that focuses on overwhelming an opponent with as many arguments as possible without regard for the accuracy or the strength of those arguments So during the presentations by Donald Trump's lawyers over the last couple of days, the attorneys will get up there and they'll say there was no pressure on the Ukrainian president because he said there was no pressure

But anyway, the military aid was released and abusive power isn't an impeachable offense and there's no crime And Adam Schiff won't testify and they had secret basement meetings and we have no firsthand testimony And back in 1996 when bill Clinton was being impeached, Jerry Nadler said this thing or that thing or whatever the case may be, it's so much, and the way that it's supposed to work on you and it is working on a lot of people, is that you say, wow, that's a lot I guess they're right I don't know how those things are related because they're not, of course, I don't know how those things relate to the impeachment of Donald Trump because they don't, but it sounds overwhelming

That's a lot of stuff I guess Donald Trump isn't guilty of any kind of wrongdoing and this has been a huge challenge to us in covering the Senate trial live because it's impossible to go point by point without then missing a ton of stuff that they continue to say So let's try just one of these in detail We'll go through what was said This example is Congresswoman Elise Stefanik

She's a Republican from New York During one of these breaks in the proceedings yesterday, a reporter asks a question and she jumps in with some Gish Gallop and note that Donald Trump retweeted this video of Elise Stefanik He loves it, but it's just nonsense Take a look at the clip Do you run? You need the 10 sky

This security assistance to pressure Ukraine to investigate, but that's okay He did not because the aid was released to Ukraine and there was no investigation and the president, the president has said that he did not tie There was no conditionality or an insomnia and in fact testified and we saw that played out as the president's defense team made the case that it was presumption, assumption and guesswork So the facts of this case remain the same in that we have more security assistance for Ukraine, much more than during the Obama administration And there was in fact no investigation into the Bidens but the administration, the administration has to lose it

This was Adam shovel choice, Adam, Adam Schiff, Adam Schiff, Adam Schiff is clearly scared that his case is so weak Adam Schiff made the decision to withdraw the subpoena This is an unfair unconstitutional and half baked set of impeachment articles that was sent over to the Senate [inaudible] So that's a ton of stuff and it sounds so open and shut It sounds so overwhelming

How could she possibly be wrong about what she's saying? But let's break it down with the transcript on the screen The reporter asks if the president did tie the security assistance to pressure Ukraine to investigate Biden That's okay, so she mentions that the aid was released, but the thing is it was eventually released because this became a scandal and they realized it So yes, they release the aid, but that's not exculpatory She says the aid was released to say that's exculpatory

They release the aid because they got caught and they said, we better release this aid because it's starting to look really, really bad Then she says, Trump said there was no conditionality Well, that's what's being debated here Her saying there was no conditionality doesn't make it true Her saying Trump's opinion is there was no conditionality also doesn't make it true

She's asserting an opinion as a fact after saying something that is not actually exculpatory She then says, Gordon Sunderland testified and Trump's defense team says it was presumption, assumption and guesswork Remember, that is not a fact She says the people being paid to defend Donald Trump, his lawyers are attacking Gordon Sunderland's testimony is merely speculative If you go and look at Sunderland's testimony, he says very clearly there was a quid pro quo with regard to the announcement of investigating Joe Biden and I infer that there was likely one for military aid, although he can't say for sure you can disagree with Sunland

You can think Sundland is wrong, that he's mistaken, that he's lying even, but she States the argument of Trump's lawyers as fact There is a debate about that She throws it into the Gish Gallop as fact Then she says, we now have more assistance from Ukraine than under the Obama administration Again, that is not evidence for or against wrongdoing when it comes to the impeachment articles

The total aid amounts to different countries go up and down for a bunch of different reasons Over time It is a non-sequitur She then says there didn't end up being an investigation into the Bidens This is both irrelevant

If you fail to secure the smear investigation you wanted, you're not less guilty, you just failed But more importantly, witnesses have said, Trump didn't care about the investigation happening He only cared about the investigation being announced So saying there was no investigation that is not exculpatory Okay

Then she switches altogether and this is where it really escalates After being asked about the John Bolton subpoena, she says, Adam Schiff is scared That's not an assertion of any kind of actual fact that's been presented She's using it as an ad hominem She's alleging fear as an ad hominem, and then she says, shift decided not to subpoena John Bolton implying that the testimony of John Bolton wouldn't help shift

And that's why shift decided not to issue the subpoena Now, in reality, they didn't subpoena John Bolton because due to the obstruction of the white house, it could take a year for the forcing of that subpoena to go through the judiciary And by then it would be after the November election and this entire thing would have gone nowhere It's not evidenced one way or the other about Donald Trump's guilt that Adam Schiff decided not to issue a subpoena for John Bolton And then again, a non-sequitur she goes to, this is an unfair, unconstitutional impeachment

That is not true Whether it's unfair, Senate Republicans can vote and it's certainly not unconstitutional So notice how it started with a question Would it be okay for Donald Trump to tie military aid to Ukraine to an investigation of Joe Biden? She Gish gallops herself all the way to the entire thing is unconstitutional If you just casually watch those 53 seconds of Elise Stefanik without really thinking through each piece, it does sound like, wow, that's an overwhelming amount of stuff that she said Trump must be innocent because look at all those things that she said

When you break it down, there is no substance to what she says It's conjecture, speculation, mischaracterizations and complete misdirection to irrelevant Nonsequitors We could do that with almost any clip of these Republicans talking to the press during the breaks This is just one clip

Imagine what there would be if you looked at others Let's do one more briefly We won't do it in as much detail because this relates to witnesses in the trial The new line from Republicans about bringing in witnesses like John Bolton is we'll decide whether we need to hear more after the trial is basically done, and this is actually evil Genius Republicans have done something insane to begin with, which is they decided at the beginning

We won't decide now about about witnesses to impeachment or documents or audio visual records in a normal trial At the start of the trial, it's determined who is on your witness list, what evidence do you plan to introduce and then both sides get to prepare their case on the basis of who's going to be testifying Republicans successfully pushed off debating witnesses until after each side gets 24 hours to present and senators get 16 hours to ask questions So now they're using this line Listen to Republican Senator John Barrasso here cause we're going to decide Friday on witnesses, but it's not going to be a one-sided issue

We have another day We have this evening tomorrow for the president's case to be presented We have 16 hours of questioning on Thursday, Wednesday and Thursday And then ultimately with the question will come, have we heard enough? Are we ready to go to final judgment or do we need to hear from more people? If we need to hear from more people, it's going to be a group of individuals, but 51 senators will make that decision on Friday and not before Friday He's saying, listen, we've had all this questioning, right? We're, we're, we've done so much

We're going to do 24 hours for the managing impeachment managers 24 hours for Trump's defense, 16 hours of questions That's 64 hours After 64 hours, we'll decide whether we've heard enough or whether we need to hear from more people This is a completely different framing now before the trial, which is when they should discuss witnesses, uh, you can't use the argument they're now using

We have a trial Who are the witnesses? Well, you're going to decide based on whether you want to hear more They are going to say 64 hours is a long time We've had presentations, we've had questions We don't really need more stuff now

It's already gone on too long because they blocked the decision about witnesses from the start It's incredibly disingenuous It's completely propagandistic and I hope that this is useful to people in the audience in understanding how to break down the propaganda and when the Gish Gallop is so frequently used, the best thing to do is convert it into writing like we did and then go through it piece by piece evaluating each piece taken altogether They want it to sound overwhelmingly exculpatory when you break it down as we did with Elise Stefanik, you realize there's nothing there There are non exculpatory statements made as if they were exculpatory

There is speculation and there are completely unrelated issues brought up like when asked would it be okay to tie military aid to a public announcement of an investigation into Joe Biden? She ends up at this entire thing is unconstitutional Let me know what you think about these breakdowns We have a very special thing going on this weekend It is my birthday on Sunday We are doing a huge membership discount on my birthday

If you want to be notified about it, get on our mailing list by signing up@davidpakmancom you just put in your email address Very easy You'll be on the mailing list Sunday you will get an email with this disgusting membership discount it

I can't even tell you what it is because it makes me feel ill It's such a huge discount, but I invite you to partake Just get on our mailing list and you'll be notified on Sunday

Source: Youtube

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar