Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Norman Alexander said:
Given Rudi's propensity for lies and fantasies to ingratiate himself with his master, and some of these "sources" are notable Ukrainian criminals, I would put exactly zero stock in the veracity of this information. Nor is it relevant to the impeachment even if it were all true. But I fully expect Donny will trot it out shortly.
Click to expand...
There's obviously no substance to his claims, but Democrats will be able to ask pertinent questions regarding, for instance, his sources. If they can unsettle him, even a little, he might well go ape-doodles.
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm talking about someone who's made self-promotion his mission in life while engaging in a mass of litigation (which is thoroughly documented). As a moron he's been quite incapable of concealing his true nature. Where do you want to draw the lines in that beyond which you don't care to look?

Trump was not sent from Heaven in 2016 to Make America Great Again, without backstory. Really, He wasn't.
Click to expand...

Nobody claimed he was.
 
CapelDodger said:
I'm talking about someone who's made self-promotion his mission in life while engaging in a mass of litigation (which is thoroughly documented). As a moron he's been quite incapable of concealing his true nature. Where do you want to draw the lines in that beyond which you don't care to look?

Trump was not sent from Heaven in 2016 to Make America Great Again, without backstory. Really, He wasn't.
Click to expand...
As if we didn't know about his racist rental policies
As if we didn't know know about "death penalty" for people who had been proven innocent
As if we didn't know about the countless court cases
As if we didn't know about stiffing contractors
As if we didn't know about Trump U
As if we didn't know his first wife accused him of rape
As if we didn't know about birtherism
As if we didn't know about John Barron

I mean really WTF?!
 
Last edited:
CapelDodger said:
There's obviously no substance to his claims, but Democrats will be able to ask pertinent questions regarding, for instance, his sources. If they can unsettle him, even a little, he might well go ape-doodles.
Click to expand...
True and that won't be pretty. And it won't take much either. Perhaps Rudi will share his phone data with us all as well?

I suspect the "thinking" Republicans, who are well aware of Rudi's ability to scupper their position, will try to keep Rudi away from Donny as much as possible. They don't want Donny getting infected with Rudi's nonsense.

Although the rot has already started to set in - Trump called Rudi literally while Rudi's plane was taxiing in after landing, demanding to know what he had brought him by way of evidence. Which suggests that Rudi's tweet was directed not at the populace in general but specifically at Donny. It is his reporting channel!
 
Norman Alexander said:
True and that won't be pretty. And it won't take much either. Perhaps Rudi will share his phone data with us all as well?

I suspect the "thinking" Republicans, who are well aware of Rudi's ability to scupper their position, will try to keep Rudi away from Donny as much as possible. They don't want Donny getting infected with Rudi's nonsense.

Although the rot has already started to set in - Trump called Rudi literally while Rudi's plane was taxiing in after landing, demanding to know what he had brought him by way of evidence. Which suggests that Rudi's tweet was directed not at the populace in general but specifically at Donny. It is his reporting channel!
Click to expand...
It does seem that Trump has been consumed by the "Biden ... DNC Server ... Ukrainian Interference" complex and is fixated on it. That's why he wanted references to the Biden family included in the partial July 25th transcript - he thought that would make them the focus of attention. As any moron would.
 
CapelDodger said:
It does seem that Trump has been consumed by the "Biden ... DNC Server ... Ukrainian Interference" complex and is fixated on it. That's why he wanted references to the Biden family included in the partial July 25th transcript - he thought that would make them the focus of attention. As any moron would.
Click to expand...
That's all they have by way of a "defense". and it's piss-weak at best, laughable at worst. But the MAGA crowd will lap it up.
 
varwoche said:
I mean really WTF?!
Click to expand...
I couldn't put it better myself.

Echoing throughout theprestige's posts is the belief that our contempt for Trump dates from his emergence on the political scene in 2016 and defeat of our hero Hillary. This while being well aware that his own first exposure to Trump was as a TV celebrity, although probably less aware that Trump is still a TV celebrity. TV celebrity was not his choice, of course, it was what his disastrous business career reduced him to, but, by pure serendipity, it suited him well. It's what set him up to transfer a cult of celebrity to a cult of the President, aka the First Celebrity of the United States.
 
Norman Alexander said:
That's all they have by way of a "defense". and it's piss-weak at best, laughable at worst. But the MAGA crowd will lap it up.
Click to expand...
They're really not trying to defend Trump's actions, they're just chanting "Biden ... DNC Server ... Ukrainian Interference", hoping to shift the conversation. It's all preaching to the choir, though.


Under actual scrutiny the Biden smear will vanish like Scotch Mist, which will necessitate a scrutiny of the original scrutiny, and it's Benghazi all over again and again ...
 
CapelDodger said:
I couldn't put it better myself.

Echoing throughout theprestige's posts is the belief that our contempt for Trump dates from his emergence on the political scene in 2016 and defeat of our hero Hillary. This while being well aware that his own first exposure to Trump was as a TV celebrity, although probably less aware that Trump is still a TV celebrity. TV celebrity was not his choice, of course, it was what his disastrous business career reduced him to, but, by pure serendipity, it suited him well. It's what set him up to transfer a cult of celebrity to a cult of the President, aka the First Celebrity of the United States.
Click to expand...

I know the meaning is probably intended differently, but I think that title goes to Ronald Reagan if we're talking about media celebrities. ;)
 
Let's be realistic here. This is the Democrats we're talking about. This mythology that they are going to get Trump on the metaphorical stand "A Few Good Men" style and sweat him until they get him to blurt out some confession of evil so vile it makes one goddamn percentage point of difference is flight of fancy level.

The Democrats don't have a solid counter-trolling manchild one man gish gallop strategy in place yet. It's rolling the dice in the dark as to who's actually going to come out the winner if they do get Trump to testify in some way.

They keep handing rope to Trump and he keeps hanging the country with it. At this rate when they are finally going to get their hands on his tax returns and all the investigation is going to reveal is that he is owed a refund.
 
Last edited:
Frankly I think that most posts in ISF defending Trump are just playing debating games. I believe that the huge majority of our members are intelligent and moral people and I cannot accept that they truly believe that what Trump is, and does, are actually defensible. Perhaps in my heart I am I naive optimist in this regard.

Similarly I believe that the majority of the Republican "leadership" defending Trump believe he is an odorous disgusting toad, but do it for political expediency. They are moral cowards, but similarly not ignorant of the truth.

Unfortunately I believe that most of the 35+% of the American population who support Trump really believe what he says. I think this is human nature; people want to believe certain things and will support a leader who tells them just that. Particularly if he/she presents it as having very simple solutions, and also provides a scapegoat. Its been done over and over again in history.
 
Giordano said:
Frankly I think that most posts in ISF defending Trump are just playing debating games. I believe that the huge majority of our members are intelligent and moral people and I cannot accept that they truly believe that what Trump is, and does, are actually defensible. Perhaps in my heart I am I naive optimist in this regard.
Click to expand...

I think you're mostly right. There are some evangelical believers, such as BrooklynBaby. But others know what he did, and they're trying to dodge the conclusion. I've tried summarizing this into a simple test:

1. Did Trump solicit a bribe for personal gain?
2. Should soliciting a bribe for personal gain disqualify one holding public office?

The answer for both is really obvious. To my knowledge, not a single right-winger on this thread has answered the questions.
 
theprestige said:
Given his stint as a New York real estate developer, I think Trump is more likely to pay bribes than solicit them.
Click to expand...

The way he ran his campaign and the people he hired suggests otherwise.
Remember Cohen publicly stating that President Trump wouldn't even pick up the phone to talk to people who haven't donated to him?
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
Given his stint as a New York real estate developer, I think Trump is more likely to pay bribes than solicit them.
Click to expand...

Really? You don't believe that a crooked real estate developer would pay bribes to city officials for things such as the issuing of building permits, to pass fire and health inspections? You don't believe that they would solicit bribes in return for favourable allocations in one of his buildings?

If so, then that must be some top class pair of blinders you're wearing!


Additionally, has anyone pointed out to you that indeed Trump is accused of offering to pay a bribe to Zelensky (the release of military funds and a White House meeting) in return for announcement of investigations into the Bidens?
 
Last edited:
I think theprestige is making a distinction between “soliciting” and “paying” brides. IMO he’s did both in his prior career. Interestingly in terms of the impeachment Trump also did both, seeking to bribe The Ukraine government and soliciting other people to pay these bribes, ie other arms of the USA government
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom