Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Sure no matter what the Ruskies had thrown at us we, as a society, do share some blame. If we weren't... ya know stupid all the algorithmically generated B.S. in the world wouldn't have mattered.

But my point across about a half dozen topics right now is I don't the world to go down the crapper to teach people a lesson.
 
Aridas said:
Well, except for the whole "Russian interference" thing. And the whole "Minority voter" suppression thing. And the whole gerrymandering thing (admittedly a congressional thing, but it was still part of the elections).
Click to expand...
How about the part where Trump is literally an unindicted co-conspirator in crimes done to help his election chances in 2016?
Click to expand...
OOps, forgot about the whole "Trump illegal campaign finance" crimes.

Of course, if you want to go down that road, you also have the Catch and Kill episode by American Media on stories that would have harmed Trump.

So yeah, totally fair election.
 
I mean really look at the bind we're in.

On one hand we're have a death cult headed by a populist demagogue who is currently in the most openly, unapologetic, unmitigated and out of control corrupt administration in most of our lifetimes, who is openly racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reality, anti-press and who was elected with the aid of our arch enemy, who's environmental policies are doing irreversible damage to the planet, and who's just factually wrong about literally everything.

On the other hand... the other side is occasionally overly dramatic and occasionally get over-obsessed with stupid stuff.

Yeah that's the moral that the South Park "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" episode was trying to make.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
I mean really look at the bind we're in.

On one hand we're have a death cult headed by a populist demagogue who is currently in the most openly, unapologetic, unmitigated and out of control corrupt administration in most of our lifetimes, who is openly racists, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, anti-science, anti-logic, anti-reality, anti-press and who was elected with the aid of our arch enemy, who's environmental policies are doing irreversible damage to the planet, and who's just factually wrong about literally everything.

On the other hand... the other side is occasionally overly dramatic and occasionally get over-obsessed with stupid stuff.

Yeah that's the moral that the South Park "Giant Douche vs Turd Sandwich" episode was trying to make.
Click to expand...

I think you can safely say "all of our lifetimes". As bad as Nixon's administration was and it was awful, Trump's is far worse. There was corruption in the Harding administration and some in both Bush's, Reagan's, JFK's, Eisenhower's, Hoover's, Harding's even in Roosevelt's and Bible boy Carter's, none held a candle to Nixon's let alone Trump's. So, unless, there's a forum member who is 150 years old, you're safe.
 
Fast Eddie B said:
You may be right. I’m thinking “Pentagon Papers”, but would need to research.

But I think if I had classified information and wanted to self-publish it on the Internet or otherwise, nothing could stop me. Even if a restraining order were issued, I’d still be free to publish in violation of said order and face the consequences.

In the Plame case, I think such vetting was voluntary by the writer to avoid legal consequences down the road. But, again, not sure on this.
Click to expand...
The Pentagon Papers weren't vetted. Not sure why you think that's relevant. Ellsberg leaked those pieces at a time. The NYT published. There was a restraining order. The WA Po published in defiance of the restraining order.
 
I think Patrick Philbin did a pretty good job but was probably too low-key and reasonable-sounding for Trump. Now it's Pam Bondi, a good-looking blonde, putting Hunter Biden on trial. Much more pleasing to Trump, I'm sure.
 
And of course she's relying on what Trump calls "fake news" to make her case.
 
Trump must have made it clear that his TV lawyers have to give his CTs air by putting them in the Congressional Record.
 
"Key Republicans signal openness to Bolton testimony in impeachment trial " The Guardian

Romney, Collins, and hints from others ...

Call me an optimistic old fool, but I'm beginning to suspect that the almost immaculate timing of recent revelations is designed to give GOP senators a last moment chance to say "Gasp! Shock! Horror! Who knew things were really that bad?" and vote to support the impeachment - something that many of them really wanted to do but wouldn't have dared.
 
GlennB said:
Romney, Collins, and hints from others ...

Call me an optimistic old fool, but I'm beginning to suspect that the almost immaculate timing of recent revelations is designed to give GOP senators a last moment chance to say "Gasp! Shock! Horror! Who knew things were really that bad?" and vote to support the impeachment - something that many of them really wanted to do but wouldn't have dared.
Click to expand...
Or, more likely, its designed to say "gasp! Horror! We need to call new witnesses to make it look like we're not OK with Trump's corruption. But after the testimony we will still vote to acquit."

Just like the Jeff Flake "Must investigate Kavanaugh" episode, where they ended up launching an investigation which (strangely enough) was prevented from interviewing key witnesses, and then came up with nothing. But it provided enough cover to suggest that they were trying to do their jobs, instead of rubber-stamping their predetermined conclusion.
 
GlennB said:
"Key Republicans signal openness to Bolton testimony in impeachment trial " The Guardian

Romney, Collins, and hints from others ...

Call me an optimistic old fool, but I'm beginning to suspect that the almost immaculate timing of recent revelations is designed to give GOP senators a last moment chance to say "Gasp! Shock! Horror! Who knew things were really that bad?" and vote to support the impeachment - something that many of them really wanted to do but wouldn't have dared.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't get it. What am I missing? What was the revelation from Bolton? That the aid was withheld for political reasons? I knew that. That Trump was aware? I knew that. I'm pretty sure all of you knew that, too.

Did I miss the story that explained the revelation?

ETA:. I went and read an article to see if I missed anything. The article might as well have been headlined " new book confirms that Trump actually meant the things he said in his phone call".


To be fair, that's not insignificant. When the story first broke I thought it was just Trump yapping, which led me to call it a nothingburger. When I found out he really did it, I thought it was pretty bad. But I found that out months ago. So did you.

The CNN article called it a "bombshell". Huh? It was a bombshell in September. Today, not so much.
 
Last edited:
Meadmaker said:
I honestly don't get it. What am I missing? What was the revelation from Bolton? That the aid was withheld for political reasons? I knew that. That Trump was aware? I knew that. I'm pretty sure all of you knew that, too.

Did I miss the story that explained the revelation?
Click to expand...
You're right, there's probably nothing earth-shattering in terms of what we currently know/understand that Bolton might contribute. The evidence points to aid being withheld for political reasons at Trump's direction. The testimony of Sondland et al., the phone call "transcript", and statements by various people in the administration certainly point to that conclusion.

However, Bolton was (at the time) closer to Trump's inner circle than others (such as Sondland). As such, he would provide a much more direct indication of Trump's actions/directions at the time.
 
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1221663763138588672

I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book. With that being said, the...
Click to expand...

https://twitter.com/Lawrence/status/1221818069066166272

And with this late night tweet the Very Stable Genius has legally waived executive privilege on John Bolton's testimony.

Trump has now made their conversations public.

History might show this was Trump's most self-damaging tweet.
Click to expand...
 
Ok. Trump's denial is kind of significant. It sets up a nice confrontation, and is an opportunity to show people he lies about things more important than the size of his,...inauguration crowd.
 
Oh, God, Herschmann said that a senior elected officeholders should have a wall of separation between their offices and their business/personal lives.

I wonder how many senators have any residual loyalty to Joe Biden.

If I'm understanding correctly, he thinks that if Trump served the nation's interest, it's OK that it also served his personal interest.

From what little I watched he was painting a vivid portrait of Trump when he describes the supposed corrupt behavior of Joe and Hunter Biden.

It won't change votes but the irony won't be lost on the more intelligent GOP senators.
 
GlennB said:
Call me an optimistic old fool ....,
Click to expand...
OK, you're an optimistic old fool! ;). Hope you're right. But I think you're wrong. GOP senators know all of this is true, but it doesn't matter.

I don't know why it doesn't matter to them, maybe just that no one wants to alienate "the base," whoever they might be. I thought my GOP senator might end up speaking out because being a Trump lackey is probably going to cost them votes. But no, they just doubled down.
 
Last edited:
It sure would be wonderfully ironic if some stupid, idiotic liar like John Bolton were to be the person who got another stupid, idiotic liar like Donald Trump out of office.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom