I found it curious how the GOP/WH talking point “No Collusion” came out early and took over the MSM. There was no way, ever, to prove “collusion”, as we all know it’s not a legal construct, so just by getting that word out front, they neutralized Mueller’s report pre-emptively.
I’m seeing a parallel with “No quid pro quo”, but as I’m following this story second- by- second, addicted to The Hive, I notice that the talking- point preceded the WB. It’s in the texts, and especially, the 9/9 Sondland text-- which followed a 5-hour pause and conversation with Donnie 2S, he clearly laid out that “The President has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” I believe this is a strategy to set the defense in advance and inoculate themselves against the obvious accusation.
What I’m really struck by is that this is before the story went public.
Of course, this is what Michael Cohen said about Trump when he testified: he never tells anybody to do anything; never gives an order, and never makes his quids directly connect with his quos. (My take).
He inoculates himself against legal liability by never actually stating the illegal. He may have goofed in the phone call, but not enough, in the memo, for the citizenry to be sure of that.
I’m concerned they will have the same success with with this message as they had with “no collusion”. I’ve already heard a couple of liberal friends who don’t follow as closely as I do say the same thing: “I don’t know that they should impeach, because there was no Quid Pro Quo in the conversation.”
The disinformation is powerful and planned well in advance. Mobster.
How can Dems undo that messaging and what pithy phrase of guilt can we use? Is “Abuse of Power” enough?