House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Zelensky said that he doesn't want to get involved in US elections - and Trump and his posse pressured him to do exactly that.
 
plague311 said:
What kind of messed up ******** is that? You can just go back and say, "Sorry, I was jk lol. There actually was a quid pro quo" without any circumstances. I hope this ******* stubs his toe every day for a week.
Click to expand...

He claims that hearing other testimony has refreshed his memory.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
He claims that hearing other testimony has refreshed his memory.
Click to expand...

Which gives President Trump, his Administration, his supporters and the whole of the GOP the opportunity to discount Sondaland's testimony on the grounds that he's clearly a liar, either in his first submission, his second submission or both ;)
 
thaiboxerken said:
Remember when it was all about denying quid-pro-quo? Now the Trumpublicans are saying that the quid-pro-quo wasn't illegal or wrong. I have to wonder if anyone, but Trumpublicans, give any credibility to anything that the Trumpublicans say anymore.
Click to expand...

1.) We didn't do it! What rubbish, it's all a made up lie. There's no reason to think we did it
2.) OK, I can see why you think we did it, but we didn't.
3.) OK, we did SOMETHING, but it was something different.
4): We didn't do it, and even if we did, it's not wrong
5.) Ok we did it, but there's nothing wrong with it. <--- WE ARE HERE
6.) OK, we did it, and there's something wrong with it, but everybody does it, so why are you picking on me?
7.) OK we did it and nobody else does it, but I'm in charge so I can do what I want. Shut up about it.

ETA: I missed a step
 
Last edited:
bonzombiekitty said:
1.) We didn't do it! What rubbish, it's all a made up lie. There's no reason to think we did it
2.) OK, I can see why you think we did it, but we didn't.
3.) OK, we did SOMETHING, but it was something different.
4.) Ok we did it, but there's nothing wrong with it. <--- WE ARE HERE
5.) OK, we did it, and there's something wrong with it, but everybody does it, so why are you picking on me?
6.) OK we did it and nobody else does it, but I'm in charge so I can do what I want. Shut up about it.
Click to expand...

There should be a step just before 4): We didn't do it, and even if we did, it's not wrong. Which usually indicates that they both did it, and it's wrong.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
plague311 said:
What kind of messed up ******** is that? You can just go back and say, "Sorry, I was jk lol. There actually was a quid pro quo" without any circumstances. I hope this ******* stubs his toe every day for a week.
Click to expand...

He claims that hearing other testimony has refreshed his memory.
Click to expand...


"Refreshed" as in, "Oh, hell. I'd better see if I can head off the perjury charges.".
 
Distracted1 said:
I find it funny that Trumpsters don't realize that when he said "I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave. and not lose any supporters" he was insulting them.
Click to expand...

I've been saying for a while now that to understand Trump and the Trumpers you have to understand how Trump could stand on stage in Iowa during the campaign, utter the phrase "How stupid are the people of Iowa?" and then win Iowa in a landslide.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I've been saying for a while now that to understand Trump and the Trumpers you have to understand how Trump could stand on stage in Iowa during the campaign, utter the phrase "How stupid are the people of Iowa?" and then win Iowa in a landslide.
Click to expand...

It sure seems to put the lie to the idea that the Libruls' condescension is the reason why people voted for Trump.
 
Belz... said:
It sure seems to put the lie to the idea that the Libruls' condescension is the reason why people voted for Trump.
Click to expand...

No it just means Trump is one of those people who can stand in front of a group of 10 people, all of whom he means to cheat, and say (either explicitly or implicitly) "Hey I'm going to cheat 9 of you and reward 1 of you" and somehow get all 10 people very clearly hear that they are 1 person who's going to get rewarded.

Trump has that "When I'm in front of Group X and say 'Lookit how stupid Group X is' I can somehow make everyone hear 'But not you *wink wink* the other members of Group X.'" It's weird.

That's the problem with Trumpers. All of them think they are either above or in on the joke. They are like the people who think they are the ones going to win in Vegas because they have 'system' or the ones who are actually going to make money on an MLM.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
That's the problem with Trumpers. All of them think they are either above or in on the joke. They are like the people who think they are the ones going to win in Vegas because they have 'system' or the ones who are actually going to make money on an MLM.
Click to expand...

Hum...

Yeah, I guess some humans are like that, and Trump is harnessing that.
 
JoeMorgue said:
No it just means Trump is one of those people who can stand in front of a group of 10 people, all of whom he means to cheat, and say (either explicitly or implicitly) "Hey I'm going to cheat 9 of you and reward 1 of you" and somehow get all 10 people very clearly hear that they are 1 person who's going to get rewarded.

Trump has that "When I'm in front of Group X and say 'Lookit how stupid Group X is' I can somehow make everyone hear 'But no you.... the other members of Group X.'" It's weird.
Click to expand...


It's like that woman in Florida, who said in an interview that she was upset because Trump's government shutdown was hurting her and her friends instead off "the people he needs to be hurting.”

Bad things are only supposed to affect people I don't like, not me.
 
Armitage72 said:
It's like that woman in Florida, who said in an interview that she was upset because Trump's government shutdown was hurting her and her friends instead off "the people he needs to be hurting.”

Bad things are only supposed to affect people I don't like, not me.
Click to expand...

Which is why I still think Trumps biggest group of supporters is going to stay people who think (right or wrong) that they don't have anything left to lose and who's primary motivation is doing as much damage as they can on the way out.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Sondaland has changed his testimony, now says that he told a Ukrainian official that military aid was dependent on them publicly announcing an investigation into Biden

[Edit]I see this has already been posted, but it got lost in the noise when I looked for it. Can't hurt to post it again.
Click to expand...

Some of the news media are saying the deal was for announcing the investigation of Biden, and some are saying the deal was for investigating/dealing with Ukraine corruption.

I should have tracked who was saying which.
 
Last edited:
quadraginta said:
"Refreshed" as in, "Oh, hell. I'd better see if I can head off the perjury charges.".
Click to expand...

I can see this meeting after the testimony was released:

Sondland: Wait a minute, I thought we agreed everyone was supposed to lie, you mean none of you did? Crap.
 
Originally Posted by Distracted1 View Post
I find it funny that Trumpsters don't realize that when he said "I could shoot someone in the middle of Fifth Ave. and not lose any supporters" he was insulting them.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
I've been saying for a while now that to understand Trump and the Trumpers you have to understand how Trump could stand on stage in Iowa during the campaign, utter the phrase "How stupid are the people of Iowa?" and then win Iowa in a landslide.
Click to expand...

I just saw a Trump supporter asked if she'd still support Trump if he did shoot someone on Fifth Ave. Her answer: Why did he shoot him?

Watch the whole video. It's amazing. The woman in the back row, gray cardigan (Crystal Arlington) is exactly what I think of when I think of a Trump supporter. Some people's ability to rationalize things is amazing.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...ut-voting-for-trump-if-he-shot-someone-on-5th
 
Stacyhs said:
I just saw a Trump supporter asked if she'd still support Trump if he did shoot someone on Fifth Ave. Her answer: Why did he shoot him?

Watch the whole video. It's amazing. The woman in the back row, gray cardigan (Crystal Arlington) is exactly what I think of when I think of a Trump supporter. Some people's ability to rationalize things is amazing.

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/...ut-voting-for-trump-if-he-shot-someone-on-5th
Click to expand...

"I don't know why [the Ukrainian aid is] going there."

"I don't know that [every President does it] to be true either!"

I love how their arguments are founded on what they don't know, and don't care to know.
 
Armitage72 said:
It's like that woman in Florida, who said in an interview that she was upset because Trump's government shutdown was hurting her and her friends instead off "the people he needs to be hurting.”

Bad things are only supposed to affect people I don't like, not me.
Click to expand...

That's all you can expect from their kind. Trumptrash aren't smart enough to know that the filthy Russian whore they are so enamored of doesn't give a **** about them. That's not a level of intelligence you can expect from such lesser beings.
 
JoeMorgue said:
That's the problem with Trumpers. All of them think they are either above or in on the joke.
Click to expand...
...because the joke has already been popular among them since years before any of them knew who Trump was. That's what made the careers of Jeff Foxworthy, Bill Engvall, Larry The Cable Guy, and Ron White, and made Hee Haw popular in rural country and a legitimate place for country singers to go for publicity.
 
varwoche said:
... it's a truism. Any lawyer who works for Trump will eventually require their own lawyer. And as often as not, Trump's lawyer's lawyer will also need a lawyer.
Click to expand...
A new wrinkle. Giuliani has hired a new team of lawyers one of whom was Michael Cohen's lawyer.

This suggests there might be one or more lawyers who specialize in representing Trump's lawyers.
 
Last edited:
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Better than it would have done had he not flipped. And it was likely his lawyer who advised him to flip...
Click to expand...

Significant is how deciding to aid prosecutors in the search for the truth, in order to hold wrongdoers responsible for their acts, has been reduced to a single word, “flip”.

Does seem like a strategy a crime boss would use.
 
If there's more amusing parts in the transcripts, I'd definitely like to know about them...!

Schiff: What do you deduce from that - that our ally is fighting with the Russians but all of these agencies that support this can't get a meeting with the President to discuss it?

Taylor: It turns our, Mr. Chairman, that those principals as we call them were on different trips at different times. I think this was also about the time of the Greenland question, about purchasing Greenland, which took up a lot of energy at the NSC.

Schiff: Okay. That's disturbing for a whole different reason.
 
Last edited:
varwoche said:
If there's more amusing parts in the transcripts, I'd definitely like to know about them...!

Schiff: What do you deduce from that - that our ally is fighting with the Russians but all of these agencies that support this can't get a meeting with the President to discuss it?

Taylor: It turns our, Mr. Chairman, that those principals as we call them were on different trips at different times. I think this was also about the time of the Greenland question, about purchasing Greenland, which took up a lot of energy at the NSC.

Schiff: Okay. That's disturbing for a whole different reason.
Click to expand...

.... It wasn't possible to find an hour that they could organize at least a teleconference? I have people in my department going on various trips all the time... we can easily set up a remote meeting. Surely they can do that too.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
.... It wasn't possible to find an hour that they could organize at least a teleconference? I have people in my department going on various trips all the time... we can easily set up a remote meeting. Surely they can do that too.
Click to expand...

I guess it's not just the meeting, they'd have to find time to produce a shiny, colorful max. four-page picture book about the issue to explain it to Trump
 
varwoche said:
A new wrinkle. Giuliani has hired a new team of lawyers one of whom was Michael Cohen's lawyer.

This suggests there might be one or more lawyers who specialize in representing Trump's lawyers.
Click to expand...

PhantomWolf said:
How well did it work out for Cohen?
Click to expand...


He was only convicted on eight counts (well ... nine, counting the perjury conviction, but they let the sentence for that run concurrent with his other time), and only got three years behind bars.

I'd say it worked out pretty well. It could have been a lot worse.
 
Rumors now abounding that GOPers in the House are considering a plan to make Giuliani the scapegoat for the Ukraine scandal, trying to portray it as a rogue operation Trump had no control over.....
Total BS of course, but it indicates the evidence of wrongdoing is so strong that they can't just hand wave it away or claim nothing happened.
 
dudalb said:
Rumors now abounding that GOPers in the House are considering a plan to make Giuliani the scapegoat for the Ukraine scandal, trying to portray it as a rogue operation Trump had no control over.....
Total BS of course, but it indicates the evidence of wrongdoing is so strong that they can't just hand wave it away or claim nothing happened.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, in the White House it's Mulvaney being thrown under the bus.
 
dudalb said:
Rumors now abounding that GOPers in the House are considering a plan to make Giuliani the scapegoat for the Ukraine scandal, trying to portray it as a rogue operation Trump had no control over.....
Total BS of course, but it indicates the evidence of wrongdoing is so strong that they can't just hand wave it away or claim nothing happened.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think Giuliani was running something of a rogue operation that got Yovanovitch fired, but that's a separate issue from Trump's "perfect" quid pro quo.
 
Wait...

Guiliani was running a rogue operation and manipulated Trump into withholding aid while enforcing Guiliani's quid pro quo?

How is that actually better?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom