WaPo: McConnell Urged Trump to Release Ukraine Call

[DrToast]

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) told the White House earlier this week that President Trump “needed to release the transcript of his call to bolster the claim that the conversation was not improper because the speculation about what happened was becoming politically untenable,” the Washington Post reports.

https://politicalwire.com/2019/09/27/mcconnell-urged-trump-to-release-ukraine-call/

Bahahah...I'm not sure if McConnell actually believed there was nothing to it, or if he's trying to sink Trump without Trump realizing it.

[tanyev]

1. Gosh, it'd be a real shame if Trump went after McConnell.

[BigMin28]

5. It would be hilarious if t-rump started

calling him Moscow Mitch.

[flibbitygiblets]

52. He can't do that, it would be an insult to his buddy Putin.

And Mitch holds the power of whether the Senate will vote to convict him. Or not.

[Doodley]

2. Trump told McConnell the allegations were baseless. McConnell said release them. Because of

Trump's dementia, he didn't remember that releasing the transcript would reveal statements that would end his presidency.

[GulfCoast66]

7. Winner, winner chicken dinner!

McConnell never thought Trump would be stupid enough to admit to the crime. Which he did.

Much as I hate him, he is about as astute a politician as Pelosi. He’s been awful quiet.

[marlakay]

29. Also remember Trump has been getting away

With tons of stuff, joking about murder on 5th Ave so he thought they could spin it as usual like they did with Mueller.

[Hoyt]

3. None of them read the transcript/memorandum. It plainly damning.

[DrToast]

4. Right, but McConnell must have actually believed there was nothing there

So much for McConnell the brilliant tactician

[HipChick]

6. No wonder Jared was in his office yesterday...

Nice little job your wife has there...and your FIL shipping biz..

[shanti]

47. AND

A DU'er posted yesterday that while on a commercial flight, Lindsay Graham was heard yakking loudly on the phone to Jared. He does get around, that Jared.

[Cha]

16. Right! It's like a lawyer doesn't ask

a question he/she doesn't know the answer to..

You also don't encourage releasing a tape you haven't heard.

trump hoisted on his own petard.. who would ever have guessed?! If this is all true then Moscow mitch must feel awfully stupid now.. and psycho must be furious that his big Senate cover up person helped him on his way to impeachment!

[Flaleftist]

8. BWAHAHAHAHA!

[Wounded Bear]

9. Moscow Mitch is probably trying to save his own ass...

If Trump goes down, McMoscow can't look like a diehard supporter, he'll want to look like a 'moderate.'

[eleny]

10. Rec'd

[brush]

11. Moscow Mitch is a snake who sees that trump has outlived his usefulness.

Last edited Sat Sep 28, 2019, 01:10 AM - Edit history (1)

How anyone but trump could think that non-transcript exonerated him is beyond me.

McConnell knew that would blow up in trump's face.

[Fiendish Thingy]

12. I know one thing- nobody's paying any attention to the investigation of his wife now

So that could be Mitch's motivation...

[dewsgirl]

31. Very very true.

[ffr]

13. What's Mitch's angle? Does he think he's third in succession?

[NCLefty]

14. Yeah that's weird. I think maybe he's done with Trump. He got tax cuts and the SCOTUS seats.

The "Grim Reaper" doesn't want us to have any actual progress so... maybe he's ready for Pence to make the GOP look too boring to even pay attention to again.

[dewsgirl]

33. He likely had no idea the bus was coming for Pence as well.

[nuxvomica]

15. The sad thing is McConnell is so corrupt he misjudged

I swear, he didn't even evaluate the call notes the way a normal, decent human being would. I really think that's what happened and both Trump and McConnell are "on their heels" with this. Like all con men, they ultimately conned themselves.

[uponit7771]

22. +1, and his lawyers told him that he did nothing illegal leaving out the impeachable part

[Chemisse]

27. That makes total sense. The praise just flooded his mind and that's all he thought about.

It just shows how manipulating him has been child's play for foreign leaders.

[Garrett78]

18. I don't buy the idea some have expressed that McConnell wants to be done with Trump.

If Trump is removed from office, the amount of Republican infighting will be off the charts. A lot of Trump supporters will revolt against the Republican Party, at least for an election cycle or two.

We can only hope that happens.

McConnell might be banking on impeachment backfiring on Democrats. But, if the evidence against Trump keeps mounting, he may find himself in an impossible situation.

[BumRushDaShow]

19. "If Trump is removed from office, the amount of Republican infighting will be off the charts"

Not if they can convince them that Pence can satisfy their wedge-issue cravings without all the twitter drama. In fact even if they lost Drumpf supporters, they would probably gain back the standard teabagger/social conservative/fiscal conservative GOPers and indies who have been quietly fleeing from their support of the party due to the unstable and unhinged WH environment.

[uponit7771]

21. Unnnnnn, Trump is their Obama to a smaller percentage of Republicans. There's nothing he

... can do wrong in regards to protecting them from non whites.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. Correct.

But aside from the interference in the election that helped to bring enough extra voters out due to their belief in the misinformation being spewed, it wasn't just the fanatical devotees that put him in office. There were quite a few independents who were Hillary-haters plus many business-types who were looking forward to having an anti-regulatory administration in place (who lock-step voted for any R on the ballot), and who I expect now are having or have had, 2nd thoughts.

Remember the popular vote numbers vs the electoral vote result (notably the tiny margins in states that flipped), so the "win" was tenuous at best and any loss in support from anyone other than the fanatics, may be fatal for him.

[uponit7771]

24. 👍🏼

[Garrett78]

26. And if the Republican Party were to (even for just a couple of election cycles) lose the support...

of a portion of Trump's cult following, it would spell disaster for the GOP. Pence, who will undoubtedly be damaged by the impeachment investigation, is not someone Cult 45 is going to rally around.

Trump has the following he has primarily because of his overt racism. Without Birtherism and his comments about Mexican immigrants, Trump never becomes the Republican Party nominee.

[BumRushDaShow]

37. Any loss of their carefully-cobbled coalition would spell disaster

especially since their party lost the national popular vote for President in 2016 by 3,000,000 AND lost the national Senate vote by 20,000,000 and the national House vote by 10,000,000 (total vote differences) in 2018.

In general, the GOP will lockstep together to form a majority "for the common GOP cause" but once they get in power, the in-fighting begins on individual priorities (where for decades, the racists and bigots were always put on the back burner)... So this is the first time the bottom of the bottom group has had a chance to shine and it's turning off the others like the fiscal conservatives and business crowd.

[Garrett78]

39. The GOP has been heavily reliant upon racism for the last 50 years.

In fact, without racism, the Republican Party would cease to be viable.

But Trump's more overt brand of racism (not that Reagan and others were all that subtle) has earned him a following that won't be satisfied with a return to someone like Pence or Romney or Bush.

That our candidates accumulate so many more votes simply points to how fucked up our tyranny of the minority system is. The late John Dingell was right that the US Senate shouldn't even exist. Nor should the electoral college, which is a remnant of slavery. But the GOP knows damn well that it's dead in the water without those things.

[BumRushDaShow]

41. Agree to a degree

and it goes back to Nixon's "Southern Strategy". But given there is always that "1/3rd" "1/3rd" 1/3rd" breakdown (D/I/R), the major parties have to woo enough of the "Is" to gain a majority and the extremes of focus on the racism and anti-immigration policies, is beginning to wear on other parts of the R coalition (AND cost them money).

Case in point is that a whole pile of GOP-embracing (and voting) produce and meat processors, are losing (or have lost) their employees to mass deportations. They relied on those folks in order to be able to pay them under the table for use as cheap labor. Those folks are gone now and some of these businesses are going or have gone belly up because either they won't or can't pay the prevailing wages to do that type of work. A more "moderate" wink wink policy for immigration might satisfy them if it came from a Pence and that is the conundrum the party faces at this point. I.e., they would "talk tough" but do the wink wink behind the scenes.

[Garrett78]

25. Trump has a cult following that won't be satisfied with Pence.

If Republicans toss their dear leader overboard, they'll be pissed. This is why hardly any Republicans criticize Trump publicly, unless they're leaving office.

[BumRushDaShow]

36. Yes but their numbers are just one portion of the GOP body-politic

a coalition that includes wayward independents who swing back and forth depending on what "single issue" they happen to be passionate about. These new cultists have essentially supplemented the teabagger/freedom caucus crowd - many of whom were also christofascist Pence supporters. In fact, you'll notice as time has gone on, a subset of the crowd that primaried the "establishment" like the Michele Bachmanns and Mike Lees, are slowly leaving or have left.

This cobbling-together has been a delicate balance but the cult are generally new voters who were dog-whistled to and responded to the call vs the teabaggers who have been around a bit longer, who never realized their extreme views would actually be dumbed down further into a cacophony of nonsense.

[Garrett78]

40. Regarding so-called "independents," I wish to once again post this article:

https://www.thenation.com/article/what-everyone-gets-wrong-about-independent-voters/

The Tea Party and Trump's Birtherism are very closely linked. The Tea Party folks were calling out for someone like Trump to lead the flock.

[BumRushDaShow]

42. Let me offer this caveat

and some caution. Although I subscribe to The Nation myself (to see one side of the liberal coin), I also know they have been co-opted by Russia - plain and simple. So I would take some of their editorializing with a grain of salt.

The teabaggers ARE astroturf. They were funded by the Kochs and when they were able to bring about the desired effects to benefit the Kochs and their ilk, then the Kochs moved on and started putting their funding in other endeavors. And then in came the Mercers.

This latest group of birthers and anti-immigrants are literally previous non-voters who generally ranted and raved about the state of affairs "locally", absent some "savior" who would truly promote their most egregious beliefs. And the Mercers were able to facilitate getting to these folks knowing the teabaggers were eventually going to flame out and there was a need for replacements.

This is why the GOP is on the precipice and also why the Romneys of the GOP are trying to reposition themselves to capture a larger group who aren't necessarily social conservatives but will go along with them as long as it isn't to the extremes - i.e., to the point that it impacts them and their livelihoods.

[Garrett78]

43. Other articles/studies have shown the same thing.

The vast majority of so-called "independents" are highly partisan. They aren't "middle of the road" voters. They are, however, less engaged and less likely to vote.

Anyway, Trump's Birtherism and the rise of the Tea Party started at the same time. Both were a response to there being a Black man in the White House. "Take our country back" and "Make America Great Again" are synonymous.

[BumRushDaShow]

44. I would then agree to disagree

as although there is definitely overlap, there are also those "single issue" things - i.e., the "TEA" was supposed to stand for "Taxed Enough Already" with a focus towards the libertarian type views of "less government/less taxes". This other crowd are just outright scum of the earth in many cases. The 2 groups may have joined together for a common hatred of Obama, but now with him out of the way, their original single issues are coming to bear and that is where the conflict lies.

ETA - have to run out the door (to go see "Hamilton" by the way) so won't be able to reply back on DU for awhile!

[Garrett78]

46. Concerns over tax policy and the size of government have always been a cover.

Racism and sexism and a general hatred for liberals (largely because of opposition to racism and sexism, support for gay rights, etc.) is the driving force behind Tea Partiers and Trump supporters, and Republican voters in general. But virtually nobody will admit to being a racist or sexist, not in 2019. So, they come up with other bullshit reasons for why they vote the way they do. And the concerns regarding government spending have everything to do with perceptions about who is the recipient of spending, about who is receiving "welfare." I recall reading a piece about a Republican who was going to die due to a lack of health insurance and he was okay with that so long as "they" didn't get "free" health care. Most Republicans in the electorate are so twisted by bigotry that they're essentially out of their minds.

The Tea Party was officially launched in February of 2009 (after Birtherism had gained footing). Guess who had taken office the previous month?

Reagan knew exactly what he was doing by kicking off his campaign (in a state he had no special connection with) by talking about "states' rights" less than 10 miles from where 3 civil rights workers were murdered. That's a dog whistle. What Trump does is use a bullhorn. From Nixon and the Civil Rights Movement forward, the GOP electorate presents a backlash to racial progress and social progress more broadly. As tame as Obama was on racism, simply having Obama in office for 8 years produced a backlash, which explains the Obama-Trump voter. Jamelle Bouie wrote an important piece about said voter: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2016/11/why-did-some-white-obama-voters-for-trump.html.

In 2010, a survey showed that 59% of Tea Partiers believed Obama was born in another country or were unsure (compared with 42% of the overall population). And by no means should that be taken to suggest that the other 41% of Tea Partiers weren't motivated largely by racism and sexism--they simply weren't crazy enough to subscribe to Birtherism.

[underpants]

34. That's a big leap of faith for them to do

Remember Trump won the nomination without receiving a majority of votes. Yes the gigantic field had a lot to do with that but Trump had prepped the battlefield with the racist birthed crap AND weekly phone ins with Fox & Friends. A small group of Republicans got the ball rolling and even Fox News couldn't heard them away.

The only positive is that we could end up with 2 (maybe even 3) factions or even separate parties from the right. No more lockstep. They'd have to actually make deals and they are horrible at that.

[BumRushDaShow]

38. I think we are sortof saying the same thing in a different way

There is only a small group of Drumpf or bust folks really... but it was enough to tip states over like here in PA. But since a lot of them are easily brainwashed by Faux, some (not all) can be maintained if say (hypothetically) a Pence brought on a suitably looney Archie Bunker-style smack-talking VP like a Joe Arpaio (who espouses storied anti-immigrant views). The Drumpf or bust crowd are generally single-issue - "anti-other".

[Garrett78]

48. The big story with regard to PA, MI, WI and elsewhere was suppressed turnout.

It was less about who showed up for Trump and more about who didn't show up for Clinton, a target of hate for 25 years.

And about voter suppression, Russia, Comey, the media with the likes of Andrea "Emails" Mitchell, etc.

The key to winning in 2020 is not winning over Trump voters or so-called "independents." The key is boosting turnout among our base (most notably POC, youth and white suburban women).

[BumRushDaShow]

50. I live in PA

and one of the things that stood out is that the margin between Clinton and Drumpf was actually about the same number of votes that Jill Stein got (~49,000 or so). I have posted the numbers on DU many times over the past few years including here - https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/SummaryResults?ElectionID=54&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0 and here - https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Philadelphia&ElectionID=54&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0

In fact the 2016 Philadelphia turnout for Clinton was only ~4,000 less than the 2012 Philadelphia turnout for Obama (i.e., ~588,000 in 2012 vs 584,000 in 2016). The big difference in 2016 ended up being the enhanced number of Stein votes and the enhanced number of Johnson (Libertarian) votes in the city. Statewide there were also counties like Erie that had previously been reliably blue, that actually flipped to red in 2016.

But I think a better indicator might be the election we just had in 2018, where thanks to getting the Congressional seats un-gerrymandered, we were able to flip 4 seats and start clawing back state reps and Senators. Plus we re-elected our Democratic Governor.

I would agree with boosting our own turnout and also agree that I refuse to pander to Drumpf voters. But I would note that at least here in PA, notably in the exburb areas, there are still "Independents". And what I mean by that is this - many are people who were often formerly "moderate" Republican but have recently started voting cross-party up and down the ticket (versus voting straight ticket). You saw that in 2016 when PA voters elected 3 Democrats for the top state positions (State AG, State Treasurer, State Auditor General) and gave Democrats the majority in the state Supreme Court. Yet they didn't provide enough to give a majority to both Clinton and McGinty (who was running for Senate against Toomey).

[Garrett78]

53. 3rd party voting was definitely up over previous years.

And that, too, was a result of all those things I mentioned (Hillary Hate, Russia, etc.).

But the single biggest takeaway is the fact that something like 4 million Obama voters didn't vote at all in 2016. Hopefully 2018 is a sign of what's to come in 2020.

[uponit7771]

20. NO WONDER !!! Moscow Mitch just released funds for election protection

[Jarqui]

28. Et Tu Mitch? nt

[underpants]

30. I since Mitch trying to cover the story that Nancy let Trump walk into it.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212499480

[marlakay]

32. He also didn't think Nancy would impeach

She didn’t have the votes back then and seemed determined not to. Great fake by her!!

[underpants]

35. Yep. See my post above.

[DeminPennswoods]

45. Real story is apparently McConnell believed Trump!

LOL!

[Garrett78]

49. McConnell, I imagine, knew what the call summary said.

I think he just thought releasing it was unavoidable given the whistleblower complaint. He, like Trump, probably hoped that the damage could be contained and that impeachment would either be avoided or would backfire on Dems.

I doubt McConnell simply took Trump at his word that the call summary would exonerate him. McConnell is evil but not stupid.

[onetexan]

51. Seems moscow mitch wants to dump trump now that he's used him to advance GOP agenda

probably is now tired of having to defend him constantly.