• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Trump Presidency: Part 17

Status
Not open for further replies.
Belz... said:
Well, according to Trump's own lawyer now you can't even investigate the President for murder.
Click to expand...
On the plus side everybody (including foreigners) can investigate his political rivals as much as they like, even if there is not a shred of credible evidence of a crime.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

“Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told reporters Thursday his controversial July call with President Trump involved no bribe, blackmail or quid pro quo, as impeachment-minded Democrats claim.”
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Retweeted

Mark Meadows
@RepMarkMeadows
As the left now tries to move the goalposts, remember that for days, all we heard was that @realDonaldTrumpoffered quid pro quo to trade foreign aid in exchange for investigating the Bidens. It was wrong. Again. Another day, another conspiracy theory debunked.

Rep. Pete King
@RepPeteKing
Nothing remotely impeachable in transcript. Ukrainian President brought up Giuliani before @POTUS Trump mentioned Biden. No quid pro quo. Pursuing impeachment is indefensible.

Rep. Jeff Duncan
@RepJeffDuncan
None of what Democrats said happened on the call between @realDonaldTrump & Ukrainian President Zelensky was true. No quid pro quo, no talk of aid, no crimes committed. They moved to impeach yesterday before they even knew the facts.

Steve Scalise
@SteveScalise
Dems launched an impeachment inquiry based on a rumor instead of waiting for the facts. It's now clear: there was no quid pro quo. @realDonaldTrump didn't break any laws. But this has never been about facts or laws for Dems & the media—they just want to undo the 2016 election.
Click to expand...

This may be a bit overtaken by subsequent events, but I put together a handy guide for those perplexed about the most obvious of the various quids pro quo in the partial call transcript:

untitled.jpg

To summarize briefly:

Zelensky asks for help defending against ongoing Russian invasion.

Trump counters that he needs a favor, i.e. help with derussification of the DNC server debacle, pinning the blame on Ukranian bad actors instead of, say, Fancy BearWP.
 
Ziggurat said:
Which has **** all to do with what I'm saying. Either the word is unacceptable, or it isn't. People didn't object to her using the word then. Because it wasn't unacceptable. It only became unacceptable as soon as Trump used it. But that's a bull **** standard.
Click to expand...

By that token, any news source reporting on Trump's use of the word 'lynching' is also guilty of using that word.

It was wrong of you to say that CNN used the word. They simply reported its use by a third party.
 
What are all these GOP tweeters and deposition-stormers complaining about the impeachment inquiry? When the committee makes a final report, they can attack it, then the whole thing goes to the Senate which will probably kill it. They are acting as if there is really something to worry about. Which makes me think that there is something to worry about.
 
Minoosh said:
What are all these GOP tweeters and deposition-stormers complaining about the impeachment inquiry? When the committee makes a final report, they can attack it, then the whole thing goes to the Senate which will probably kill it. They are acting as if there is really something to worry about. Which makes me think that there is something to worry about.
Click to expand...

Plus, the minority gets to write their own competing report.
 
Also, why does Trump even bother periodically trotting out the Ukrainian president's denial of impropriety? Zelensky is not stupid. Of course he's going to deny it.
 
In defense maybe the snacks in the chambers are really good. I mean I'm not saying I'd hurt democracies for some finger foods... but I mean maybe they have full sized Snickers. Just saying.
 
GlennB said:
By that token, any news source reporting on Trump's use of the word 'lynching' is also guilty of using that word.

It was wrong of you to say that CNN used the word. They simply reported its use by a third party.
Click to expand...

By that standard, CNN never says anything. But that's stupid. Furthermore, it's obviously wrong that they reported it. They didn't. They published it. And that's exactly the sense in which CNN says anything written.
 
Minoosh said:
Also, why does Trump even bother periodically trotting out the Ukrainian president's denial of impropriety? Zelensky is not stupid. Of course he's going to deny it.
Click to expand...


It reminds me of something a boss said once.

How many legs does a dog have, if we call a tail a leg?
Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.


EDIT: Ah. He was quoting Lincoln.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
By that standard, CNN never says anything. But that's stupid. Furthermore, it's obviously wrong that they reported it. They didn't. They published it. And that's exactly the sense in which CNN says anything written.
Click to expand...

Tune in for next week’s exciting episode of “When my whataboutism fails!”
 
kookbreaker said:
Tune in for next week’s exciting episode of “When my whataboutism fails!”
Click to expand...

This is better then the time Fox News claimed that Omar launched a "profanity laced attack" on the President... by quoting his words back at him.
 
Ziggurat said:
By that standard, CNN never says anything. But that's stupid. Furthermore, it's obviously wrong that they reported it. They didn't. They published it. And that's exactly the sense in which CNN says anything written.
Click to expand...
Pfffft. How many times do you want to split this semantic hair? That's yesterday's distraction. It's distracting from today's distraction.

What is your position on the claim that a grand-jury-type proceeding is in every way a lynching? Grand juries don't actually execute people, that I know of.

I'm not even trying to defend the grand-jury system. Obviously it can be abused. Nevertheless it is a commonly accepted way to arrive at an indictment. If someone wants to complain that indictments are one-sided - yes, well, that's pretty much the point. It is the prosecutor's version of events. The House is in the preliminary phase of issuing an indictment. So what?
 
Ziggurat said:
By that standard, CNN never says anything. But that's stupid. Furthermore, it's obviously wrong that they reported it. They didn't. They published it. And that's exactly the sense in which CNN says anything written.
Click to expand...

Trump's word-twisting team could use a man who writes like this. Head and shoulders above anyone currently working there.
 
Armitage72 said:
It reminds me of something a boss said once.

How many legs does a dog have, if we call a tail a leg?
Four. Saying that a tail is a leg doesn't make it a leg.


EDIT: Ah. He was quoting Lincoln.
Click to expand...
Lincoln was a Republican. Not very many people know that.
 
The "But it was different when Obama did it" has been established to the point I think it's insane to pretend it's gonna matter.

They don't care about their hypocrisy, only their enemies. Ironically enough.
 
Minoosh said:
What is your position on the claim that a grand-jury-type proceeding is in every way a lynching? Grand juries don't actually execute people, that I know of.
Click to expand...

It's stupid hyperbole. But I don't find it offensive because of the word "lynch", and neither did almost everyone else when anyone else did the same thing until Trump decided to do it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom