• 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.

House Impeachment Inquiry

Status
Not open for further replies.
Skeptic Ginger said:
More than a few big name Republicans aren't letting Trump get away with dissing Vindman. He's too respected. Might be we are reaching peak Trump after all.
Click to expand...

Give it 24-48 hours when it's moved off the front pages and they'll be back to toadying again.
 
kellyb said:
Rudy Giuliani tweets:

"ANOTHER SCHIFFTY BACKFIRE: A US gov. employee who has reportedly been advising two gov’s?

No wonder he is confused and feels pressure.

However the only opinion that legally counts is Pres. Zelensky’s. Who has clearly said NO pressure.

End of impeachment. End of Schiff."



LOL!
Click to expand...

Zelensky is thinking to himself "how did I wind up in this clown car?"
 
Stacyhs said:
This doesn't surprise me one iota. It's why they were willing to release the 'transcript' to quickly. I want to hear what's on the Top Secret server they so quickly transferred the conversation to.
Click to expand...
The two edits that he said here requested and weren't in the final aren't smoking guns, from what I've read. Trump mentioned tapes of Biden, which seem to refer to Biden's brag about pushing out Shokin, and Zelensky saying a Burisma by name.

This is evidence of locking down the transcript prematurely, but not of huge omissions that would utterly change the game.
 
phiwum said:
The two edits that he said here requested and weren't in the final aren't smoking guns, from what I've read. Trump mentioned tapes of Biden, which seem to refer to Biden's brag about pushing out Shokin, and Zelensky saying a Burisma by name.

This is evidence of locking down the transcript prematurely, but not of huge omissions that would utterly change the game.
Click to expand...


It's evidence that the transcript isn't the complete and unaltered record which Trump and his sycophants keep claiming it is.

Which can only lead reasonable people to wonder what else has been studiously omitted.
 
quadraginta said:
It's evidence that the transcript isn't the complete and unaltered record which Trump and his sycophants keep claiming it is.

Which can only lead reasonable people to wonder what else has been studiously omitted.
Click to expand...

I reckon if anything seriously damning had been omitted, Vindman would have said so. He was in a position to know.
 
a_unique_person said:
Zelensky is thinking to himself "how did I wind up in this clown car?"
Click to expand...


Given that President Zelensky isn't testifying, or ruling on the case, I fail to see how his opinion is the only one "that legally counts".
Oh right, legal procedures are item #36541 on the list of things that Trump doesn't understand but for which he insists he's an expert.
 
phiwum said:
I reckon if anything seriously damning had been omitted, Vindman would have said so. He was in a position to know.
Click to expand...

I just want to know why they specifically said that one of the ellipses wasn't covering anything up when it was.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that one example of his attempts to change the transcript was to include Trump telling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky there were tapes of Biden, which The New York Times reported occurred where there's an ellipsis in the transcript that was released. The change was not made. The assertion that some portion of the conversation was replaced by an ellipsis contradicts the White House's statement in September that the ellipses in the transcript did not represent missing words or phrases
Click to expand...

Why even bother lying about it, and why remove it? It just casts doubt on everything else they say.
 
plague311 said:
I just want to know why they specifically said that one of the ellipses wasn't covering anything up when it was.



Why even bother lying about it, and why remove it? It just casts doubt on everything else they say.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If the WH thought what was said wasn't detrimental to their position, why would they remove it from the released 'transcript'? Not only remove it, but do so even after the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff specifically requested it be included? No, they're hiding something. No surprise there.
 
plague311 said:
I just want to know why they specifically said that one of the ellipses wasn't covering anything up when it was.



Why even bother lying about it, and why remove it? It just casts doubt on everything else they say.
Click to expand...
Totally fair point. Seems to me that they could've said that the omitted part was unintelligible because ther voice to text transcriber didn't recognize it, but then they'd have to admit rushing the transcript to the protected server where later editing was difficult. That would sound suspicious so they lied.
 
phiwum said:
Those two omissions aren't smoking guns. They're significant as evidence of the rushed handling of this document, but they don't make a quid pro quo believer out of those who've denied it this far.
Click to expand...

To be fair, nothing would make a quid pro quo believers out of those who've denied it this far.

ETA:
The Great Zaganza said:
nothing will.
Click to expand...

Screw you and your greatness, Zaganza!!!
 
Belz... said:
To be fair, nothing would make a quid pro quo believers out of those who've denied it this far.

ETA:


Screw you and your greatness, Zaganza!!!
Click to expand...
Then this report isn't all that important. Buy I could sure imagine filling in those ellipses with more damaging information than we've seen.
 
The Great Zaganza said:
nothing will.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and there are two camps:
1: the people who say “he didn’t say “quid pro quo” so it isn’t quid pro quo.”
2: the Mulvaney camp, who say “of course it is, it’s what we do all the time. Get over it!”

Either way, nothing will ever sway the Trumpers. Meanwhile, the facts are quite clear that Trump held up $400M in military aid to get dirt on his primary rival in the upcoming election. To the Trumpers, that’s a perfectly OK thing to do, apparently.
 
phiwum said:
Then this report isn't all that important. Buy I could sure imagine filling in those ellipses with more damaging information than we've seen.
Click to expand...

it is VERY important in nailing Sondland on a perjury.
Once the cost of lying for Trump becomes apparent, people will cooperate rather than risking fines and jail.
 
phiwum said:
Then this report isn't all that important. Buy I could sure imagine filling in those ellipses with more damaging information than we've seen.
Click to expand...

It is just further shows that the "transcript" is not a transcript which will not impact true believers, but may have some impact on those who are on the fence about impeachment. Whether those people are important is yet to be seen.
 
phiwum said:
Totally fair point. Seems to me that they could've said that the omitted part was unintelligible because ther voice to text transcriber didn't recognize it, but then they'd have to admit rushing the transcript to the protected server where later editing was difficult. That would sound suspicious so they lied.
Click to expand...

Lying sounds exceptionally more suspicious than anything else.

If you ask me, the people involved in releasing the documents are just inept. They don't know what they should hide and what they shouldn't, so they just snip stuff that names certain things. Whether it's right or wrong, they don't know. Trump's lackeys are in control here, and they don't have the brain power or experience to know what's relevant. It's just the blind leading the blind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom