• 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.
Tero said:
Very tired of Jordan badgering witnesses. With Taylor for example. Even if President Z had agreed to investigate Burisma/Bidens/2016, there would not ever have been an announcement:
"We are going to investigate Joe Biden, the criminal, so we can get US military aid."
Click to expand...
I wonder what would happen if one of these witnesses decided to bring up Gym Jordan's past reputation during his questioning. Something along the lines of:

"I can't believe I'm being questioned about corruption by a man who ignored sexual assault".

Or when questioned by Devin Nunes...

"Don't you have a fake cow that you should be suing?"

Yes, I know that the witnesses are supposed to stick to basic facts about the case. And I'm sure that Schiff would somehow admonish the witness.

But the republicans have been doing their best to shift the focus from Trump's corruption to Biden... Imagine how it would impact the news cycles (even for a day or 2) to have Jordans or Nunes past activities highlighted. Maybe it might damage their credibility a bit.
 
JoeMorgue said:
In a very different universe I would almost feel some pity for the Republicans since Trump seems so insistent on doing something right after they claim he'll never do it.

Republican in front of Congress: "Trump never agreed to a Quid Pro Quo with Ukraine."

*Trump's mouthpiece walks out and literally says he did exactly that.*

Republican "Okay well he's not gonna start intimidating witness... oh the President just tweeted something let me read it... okay never mind. Well it's not like he gonna have Stone Cold Steve Austin run in and hit me with the stunner.." *GLASS BREAKING SOUND, PYRO GOES OFF* "Oh come on!"
Click to expand...

*Cue Dogma movie*

Jay: Guys like us don't just fall out of the ******* sky you know!

*Chris Rock falls from the sky*

Jay: Beautiful, naked, big-titted women just don't fall out of the sky, you know!
 
kellyb said:
Huh. That is theoretically possible, I guess. I can see how that could happen.

I'm not convinced it IS what happened, but if someone who would be in a position to actually know said that was probably closer to what happened, that it was a near-serendipity type of event, I'd stop caring about the reality of the matter, to be quite honest. It would just become one of those "I guess we'll never truly know, and also, it doesn't even matter" things.
Click to expand...

Yet you pound on about a hypothetical interpretation by folks who have second-hand information after the fact
 
kellyb said:
1) Why won't you answer a simple, easy, no-brainer yes or no question? You know you doesn't like doing that? People who have issues with the correct and true, obvious answer. That's who.
Click to expand...

YOU might think its a no-brainer, but most of us here do have brains, we are smart, and we know exactly what you are trying to do.

We are not falling for your game.

kellyb said:
2) How is the evidence that Ukraine absolutely did "intervene" not relevant to the question about if there's any basis for the allegation that they interfered?
Click to expand...

Its not relevant because Kent was SPECIFICALLY answering a question at the end of a train of questions related to the debunked 'Ukraine framed Russia for the DNC server hack' conspiracy theory.

kellyb said:
Why you like quasi-trolling like this is beyond me, by the way. It's really weird.
Click to expand...

We are not quasi-trolling. We are trying (repeatedly) to explain to you that you are mistaken about Kent's answer because you are isolating it from the context in which it belongs.

Kent's answer was truthful, and honest and correct in the context that the question was asked and answered. That is why Leshchenko's statement is irrelevant, and why we are not going to be drawn into saying whether or not it is true.

If you can't (or won't) accept this, then there is not a lot we can do to help you understand where you are making your mistake.
 
Belz... said:
For ****'s sake, Kelly, how dishonest can you be? I've given you precise and honest answers to every question and points you've made. You, on the other hand, have declined to indicate how and why you disagree with me, so it's a bit rich that you try to gaslight the thread into thinking that I'm the one doing this. You do know they can read the exchange, right?
Click to expand...

It feels like we're being bobbed.
 
GlennB said:
In the fullness of time and after due pondering, at the correct juncture, at the end of the day, when all relevant factors have been taken into consideration, in the final analysis and on mature reflection? Me too.
Click to expand...

FTFY Sir Humphrey, because you missed out some important bits!
 
CapelDodger said:
If Trump was trying to do it he'd fail.
Click to expand...

We really should try reverse psychology.

If we can convince Trump that the it really make the Democrats angry if solved global warming, brokered peace in the Middle East, cured cancer, and invented a clean energy source...
 
autumn1971 said:
Yet you pound on about a hypothetical interpretation by folks who have second-hand information after the fact
Click to expand...

Well, the primary "folks who have second-hand information" is the Financial Times journalist who researched the article before it passed editorial review, in your alternative theory of the article's reason for existing.

The article's contents are the only facts of the matter as presented by a reputable source. Your argument that the article is wrong is akin to calling it fakenews, although you are making a somewhat plausible case that it could be wrong, unlike Trumpistas when they call what appears to be excellent journalism accounts false/fake.

I'm less than convinced by your idea that it's a sort of fake news. It seems unlikely that the FT would print journalism that sloppy.
 
smartcooky said:
FTFY Sir Humphrey, because you missed out some important bits!
Click to expand...

**giggle** Thanks.

Meanwhile, this is weird at first glance:

"The president was also speaking at the White House as the @realdDonaldTrump Twitter account was simultaneously resharing messages from Republicans defending him against the impeachment inquiry."

Can a retweet be put on a time delay?

link
 
Belz... said:
I'm pretty sure you already saw Kelly's argument for what it is.
Click to expand...

This might come as a bit of a shock, but I have little doubt that the vast majority of people in this thread have been rapidly scrolling past your endless squabble (the latest of many, with various posters) with kellyb.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom