Trump whistleblower brewing scandal

quadraginta said:
Secret votes for impeachment trials are a bad idea. I am in unequivocal agreement with that.

But it is interesting to see the idea that if provided with political cover the vocal supporters of Trump would kick him out of office.

It points to one of the flaws in the checks and balances system. Decisions in a Senate trial, important ones bearing on the integrity of the presidency and our government are not made on the facts, they are made on political expediency.

Not sure if that's fixable, but the secret ballot conceit sure makes it obvious.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's fixable unless we plug a different species in the equation. Humans are thus.
 
Hannity has a comical, inane excuse for Mulvaney's shocking* admission to quid pro quo.

Hannity said:
I just think he's dumb, I really do. I don't even think he knows what he's talking about. That's my take on it.
Click to expand...

* Not unlike admitting there's such a thing as death and taxes, in terms of obviousness.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It also seems somewhat off for you to be complaining about unfair treatment, given how much you like to bait people.
Click to expand...

This kinda sounds like addressing the arguer, not the argument.

Trump has alluded to a full transcript but that doesn't mean it exists. I thought of another possibility - maybe it was taken down by a court reporter. For many years that was the gold standard, not audio tapes.

Could he avoid turning it over if he classified it as super-duper top secret?

Not sure how much this matters, since the summary he turned over is pretty damning on its own. It bothers me a little that Mulvaney's quid pro quo involved the "server" thing and not the Biden thing. It makes it less personal, because Trump has been yammering about the server for years, independent of any named candidate. I'd still rather there were few more dots to connect but it sounds like the House is on it.
 
acbytesla said:
I'm so sick of hearing about poor conservatives being insulted and being treated badly while they support a President who treats anyone that disagrees with him or refuses to put their noses in the crack of his ass badly.
Click to expand...
The thing that bugs me is how Trump is pitching a hissy fit about someone else supposedly lying to the American people. How can anyone take that **** seriously?
 
varwoche said:
Hannity has a comical, inane excuse for Mulvaney's shocking* admission to quid pro quo.
Click to expand...
So does this mean Mulvaney's about be canned? Think Trump will understand that Hannity is also insulting Trump?

ETA: Plus, since when does being dumb make someone a liar?
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
The thing that bugs me is how Trump is pitching a hissy fit about someone else supposedly lying to the American people. How can anyone take that **** seriously?
Click to expand...

I've been asking that question since he descended down that escalator.

Trump is by far the most prolific liar I've encountered in my entire life. And what's amazing is this person is the President of the United States. And what's doubly amazing is that statement isn't hyperbole. Given what we know about Trump how anyone believes him on anything amazes me. And yet every day people in these threads defend those lies.
 
acbytesla said:
I've been asking that question since he descended down that escalator.

Trump is by far the most prolific liar I've encountered in my entire life. And what's amazing is this person is the President of the United States. And what's doubly amazing is that statement isn't hyperbole. Given what we know about Trump how anyone believes him on anything amazes me. And yet every day people in these threads defend those lies.
Click to expand...


Or ignore them.

With great fervor.
 
acbytesla said:
I've been asking that question since he descended down that escalator.

Trump is by far the most prolific liar I've encountered in my entire life. And what's amazing is this person is the President of the United States. And what's doubly amazing is that statement isn't hyperbole. Given what we know about Trump how anyone believes him on anything amazes me. And yet every day people in these threads defend those lies.
Click to expand...

Just because he lies a lot does not mean that your perception something is a lie is correct. That is sometimes what you are getting challenged on.

ETA: plus, for most *lies" you are simply going to lack evidence that it is a lie
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Just because he lies a lot does not mean that your perception something is a lie is correct. That is sometimes what you are getting challenged on.

ETA: plus, for most *lies" you are simply going to lack evidence that it is a lie
Click to expand...

No, he lies on what I'm being challenged on too. In truth though, I'm rarely challenged on whether his lies are the truth. It's more we don't care. Or they propose a false equivalence. It's spin and pivot. Its things like what he says isn't important or he was joking.
 
acbytesla said:
No, he lies on what I'm being challenged on too. In truth though, I'm rarely challenged on whether his lies are the truth. It's more we don't care. Or they propose a false equivalence. It's spin and pivot. Its things like what he says isn't important or he was joking.
Click to expand...

And that is why I carefully chose the word sometimes
 
Belz... said:
Gods, it's really hard to get you to read what you reply to, isn't it? You said he wasted everybody's time. You can only speak for yourself here.

I really don't know why this is all so damned hard for you.
Click to expand...

Here, apparently you need help with your language challenges:

Skeptic Ginger said:
Why not post, "IMO it's hopeless" instead of wasting everyone's time with all the whining?
Click to expand...
Belz said:
Don't speak for me. Put him on ignore if you don't want to read his posts.
Click to expand...
The proper way to reply here and have your meaning be clear would have been to address only that one word in the post, not the whole thing.

For example, "I take issue with "everyone" in that post". That would have made it clear you were only talking about the use of the word, "everyone".

I know it's easier to believe we can all read your mind and we should never misunderstand your perfect prose. But sometimes it is you that is not clear, and it is not the fault of the person who tried to decipher your petty ire.


BTW, you could follow your own advice and put me on ignore. It would be no loss for me.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
The proper way to reply here and have your meaning be clear would have been to address only that one word in the post, not the whole thing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure, and then you'd accuse me of cutting out the rest of the "context" that made all the difference in the world.

No, the post was short, and my response was clear. You just didn't get it because you didn't bother to try.
 
Taylor's opening statement. Key excerpts:

During that phone call, Ambassador Sondland told me that President Trump had told him that he wants President Zelenskyy to state publicly that Ukraine will investigate Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 elections...

Amb. Sondland also told me that he now recognized that he had made a mistake by earlier telling the Ukrainian officials to whom he spoke that a White House meeting with President Zelensky was dependent on a public announcement of investigations — in fact, Amb. Sondland said, ‘everything’ was dependent on such an announcement, including security assistance,’
Click to expand...
 
BobTheCoward said:
Just because he lies a lot does not mean that your perception something is a lie is correct.
Click to expand...
Doesn't mean it's not correct either.

for most *lies" you are simply going to lack evidence that it is a lie
Click to expand...
You are probably right - which means he probably lies a lot more than he is called out on.

But it depends on what you call 'evidence'. Even the facts can't be verified, you can often tell when he is probably lying by visual clues - for example if his lips are moving.
 
Suggestion:This be merged with the impeachment inquiry thread since they seem pretty much to duplicate each other.
 
slyjoe said:
From CBS News, now McConnell is calling Trump a liar.



https://www.cbsnews.com/video/mcconnell-says-he-didnt-tell-trump-his-ukraine-call-was-innocent/
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
Did he actually do that? Seems he implied it. That's really an important distinction in this case.
Click to expand...

slyjoe said:
I was projecting onto Trump I guess.

ETA: The lying that is.
Click to expand...


I don't think McConnell's relationship with the truth is much closer than Trump's.

He just isn't quite as obvious about it.
 
Stacyhs said:
McConnell says he doesn't 'recall' any such conversation. "I don't recall" is always used when someone doesn't want to really answer the question. I wouldn't be surprised if the Turtle doesn't suddenly 'remember' it before long.
Click to expand...

RecoveringYuppy said:
Did he actually do that? Seems he implied it. That's really an important distinction in this case.
Click to expand...

He first stated flatly "We've not had any conversations on that."

Then he scoffed "You'd have to ask him. I don't recall..."

I think he's just so used to doing the "lawyerly liar" thing of saying "I do not recall" that he slipped into it even though he was telling the truth! LOL
 
slyjoe said:
From CBS News, now McConnell is calling Trump a liar.
Click to expand...
I wish. McConnell just said he didn't recall having a conversation with Trump about the phone call. I don't know why CBS was asking McConnell today about a remark Trump made on Oct. 3. I believe McConnell never made the "innocent" comment because I can see him not wanting to converse about the call - the same way a defense lawyer might head off a confession by a client. But he was probably aware of Trump's comment at the time and saw no need to correct the record.

I can totally see a politician saying to a reporter, "Ask me about Trump's comment," knowing it will give him a chance to say, " I don't recall any conversation about the phone call. " If McConnell himself suggested the question, that would be significant. But if the reporter was just asking in a kind of random way, his comment isn't that significant. People can always say, well, that's just Trump, he exaggerates. McConnell did make a comment at some point about the phone call not being an impeachment-level offense, which Trump just in a Trumpian way puffs up to "McConnell said it's the most innocent phone call ever." It certainly doesn't make Trump look good, and it's nice to see him contradicting Trump, but he did not call Trump a liar.
 
Last edited:
Tsukasa Buddha said:
Taylor's opening statement. Key excerpts:
Click to expand...
Caveat: I haven't read his testimony. But I'll chime in anyway:

Taylor is still recounting his understanding of what Sondland's understanding was. That doesn't prove Trump actually connected the investigation to the aid package.

There was also a Republican senator who got the same understanding from Sondland, but IIRC he slithered out of confirming that later.

It still gives Trump deniability. Although Trump himself doesn't really deny it - he latched onto "no quid pro quo" like he did "no collusion," and then makes it pretty clear that this was indeed his intent and that he doesn't see anything wrong with that. Something for something, a favor for a favor - Mulvaney was right, that does happen all the time. It wouldn't bother the GOP senators in itself, *except* that they really, really wanted Ukraine to have those weapons, because Graham, McConnell and their ilk don't have a personal love affair going on with Putin and want someone to push back when he tries to annex other countries.

They also see that it's not great for the brand to have Trump appear to pull strings to get Biden investigated, but I don't think this bothers them all that much. But they are a bit resentful that Trump is trying to co-op their own foreign policy influence.

I really wish Trump had gone ahead on his Doral plan. It was a bite-sized scandal that didn't take several paragraphs to explain.
 
quadraginta said:
I don't think McConnell's relationship with the truth is much closer than Trump's.

He just isn't quite as obvious about it.
Click to expand...

kellyb said:
He first stated flatly "We've not had any conversations on that."

Then he scoffed "You'd have to ask him. I don't recall..."

I think he's just so used to doing the "lawyerly liar" thing of saying "I do not recall" that he slipped into it even though he was telling the truth! LOL
Click to expand...
And these distinctions are important. As long as McConnell takes the lawyerly path we can assume he's still anti-impeachment (which is actually his current campaign slogan). If he ever actually says, rather than leaves you to infer, that he said Trump is a liar that will signal an important turn. We're not there yet. And this is important strategically.
 
RecoveringYuppy said:
And these distinctions are important. As long as McConnell takes the lawyerly path we can assume he's still anti-impeachment (which is actually his current campaign slogan). If he ever actually says, rather than leaves you to infer, that he said Trump is a liar that will signal an important turn. We're not there yet. And this is important strategically.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean. He probably did let the truth slip out, and then he had to revert to liar-legalese to walk it back, to continue to justify not impeaching.

Good catch.
 
dudalb said:
Suggestion:This be merged with the impeachment inquiry thread since they seem pretty much to duplicate each other.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, dependent on which thread it merged into which thread. The thread, IMHO, should retain the title of the other thread, because at the moment we don't know where the impeachment inquiry will end up. If, for example, the House starts investigating as part of the inquiry, say, Trump wanting to host G-7 at Mar-A-Largo, then that will be off-topic for this thread, but on-topic for the other one.
 
I haven't had the chance to follow the fake news lately because I've been so busy working (i.e., supporting all of the welfare recipients in this thread). I've seen headlines to the effect that recent testimony "proves" a quid pro quo, which is ridiculous. There was no quid pro quo. Trump, being a businessman, simply said "you do something for me, and I'll do something for you." Happens all the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom