• 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.
Is this enough for you?

Yes, and it clearly and unequivocally shows that the train of questioning was about the Ukraine/CrowdStrike/DNC server CT, and that the question Goldman asked was about that, and only about that.

Beyond this, I am not playing your silly game any more.
 
Yesterday, when I posted my summary of the public testimony given to the House Intelligence Committee by George Kent and William Taylor, I failed to mention that all of the public witnesses in these proceedings are testifying under oath. In CSPAN's video record of Wednesday's proceedings, Kent and Taylor are sworn in at about the 27:50 mark.

If he was under oath, then I guess he must have some secret strategy of being able to prove that something like "near serendipity theory" is actually correct.

Maybe the Ukranians involved went on TV in Ukraine and explained what really happened and how it's not what all the news was making it look like, after Ukranian activists had just gone bonkers with joy, based on what turned out to be inaccurate speculation that their work had saved the day from a Trump presidency. Something like that.

Until I see whatever it is, I'm still saying, it LOOKS like he's lying. "He can't be that dumb" is the only thing making it reasonably plausible that he is, in fact, telling the truth.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and it clearly and unequivocally shows that the train of questioning was about the Ukraine/CrowdStrike/DNC server CT, and that the question Goldman asked was about that, and only about that.

Beyond this, I am not playing your silly game any more.

It reads to me more like a narrative just scripted to have a satisfying (to Russiagate fanatics) "Russia didit!" resolution at the end.
 
It reads to me more like a narrative just scripted to have a satisfying (to Russiagate fanatics) "Russia didit!" resolution at the end.

That's the conspiracy theorist in your head speaking.

If that is what you see when you read the transcript then you are beyond any help from me.
 
I did quote it... yesterday

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12892926&postcount=1798

You ignored it when you replied to that post

My apologies.

Each question in the sequence answered, if your answer is a lie, that's perjury, right? There is no "it was irrelevant so that makes it not a lie" way out of that, if you're actually on real trial for perjury. And i don't see why the Republicans wouldn't try him for perjury since they know everything we know about this and more.

Or do you disagree?
 
Ukraine helped the DNC hack DNC servers because the Democrats wanted to lose the election.............?!
 
Trump's approval at Rasmussen up 4 points to 50% since bug-eyed psycho Schiff took his star chamber to national television on Wednesday. No graceful way for Piglosi to get out of it. LOL.
 
My apologies.

Each question in the sequence answered, if your answer is a lie, that's perjury, right? There is no "it was irrelevant so that makes it not a lie" way out of that, if you're actually on real trial for perjury. And i don't see why the Republicans wouldn't try him for perjury since they know everything we know about this and more.

Or do you disagree?

There are four elements needed to show perjury.

EDIT: What the heck, why not list all 4?
Statement under oath.
Statement is false
Specific Intent
Materiality


One of those elements is that the statement must be material to the proceedings. So relevance is actually important.
 
Last edited:
Trump's approval at Rasmussen up 4 points to 50% since bug-eyed psycho Schiff took his star chamber to national television on Wednesday. No graceful way for Piglosi to get out of it. LOL.

Trump has good poll numbers in a Rasmussen poll. Wow :rolleyes:
 
Trump's approval at Rasmussen up 4 points to 50% since bug-eyed psycho Schiff took his star chamber to national television on Wednesday. No graceful way for Piglosi to get out of it. LOL.

Alternatively, you could have gone for cogent, adult analysis.
 
That's the conspiracy theorist in your head speaking.

If that is what you see when you read the transcript then you are beyond any help from me.

Narrative control a being a real phenomenon in politics (and elsewhere in the world, like in business) is a fact. There are consultant who specialize in this stuff. There are parody websites of the companies that specialize in it.

https://consentfactory.org/client-list/


It's funny if you've ever been in a local political campaign and had to go to war with one of them. They're shady as hell.
Anywho:
https://apolitical.co/solution_arti...o-craft-a-great-story-about-your-policy-idea/
In every significant corporation in the nation, controlling the narrative has become one of those feely-feely things that unemotive CEOs and CFOs, with a growing amount of anxiety, understand they really don't comprehend and about which they need outside consultants to hold their hands.

Last week, in a breakthrough example of this new communications form, Bill de Blasio, New York's mayor-elect, released a video of his daughter explaining how and why she became a drug addict, and how sorry she was about it. This was an example of "getting out ahead of the story" (another term in the art of modern communication), as well as controlling it. The de Blasio camp both owned up to this potentially negative revelation and, with their video treatment, owned it.

This is...not controversial.
 
Trump has good poll numbers in a Rasmussen poll. Wow :rolleyes:

One of the Trump club talking points has been that impeachment would actually help Trump's reelection by energizing his base and making Democrats look bad.

It's part of Trump's "Power of Positive Thinking" thing, where treating things you want as actually true makes them happen. And in a psychological sense with his base it's sortof true. Just one chunk of totally controlling his cult's reading of events.
 
Trump's approval at Rasmussen up 4 points to 50% since bug-eyed psycho Schiff took his star chamber to national television on Wednesday. No graceful way for Piglosi to get out of it. LOL.

Donald? Donald Trump? Is that you? I am so thrilled to see you posting in our forum! :lovestruck:
 
Last edited:
Nixon's approval was 24% when he resigned.

The senate hearings on Watergate started in May, 1973, with approval ratings not far under 50%. It took more than a year from there to get to resignation.

We're currently not even at Senate hearings yet.

Granted, Trump's base seems pretty fixed, and they have FOX to hold the line of support. So I agree that Trump's approval will likely never sink so low, he will certainly not resign and unless a miracle occurs, the Republicans in the Senate will keep defending him and not enough will defect to remove Trump from office.

The good news is that when Democrats participate and are counted, they outnumber Republicans and those trends have been consistently towards blue. So the effect of the impeachment will hopefully be that Americans who believe that rules should apply to the executive will come out and do what the senate will not, vote to remove a lawless president.
 
The senate hearings on Watergate started in May, 1973, with approval ratings not far under 50%. It took more than a year from there to get to resignation.

We're currently not even at Senate hearings yet.

Granted, Trump's base seems pretty fixed, and they have FOX to hold the line of support. So I agree that Trump's approval will likely never sink so low, he will certainly not resign and unless a miracle occurs, the Republicans in the Senate will keep defending him and not enough will defect to remove Trump from office.

The good news is that when Democrats participate and are counted, they outnumber Republicans and those trends have been consistently towards blue. So the effect of the impeachment will hopefully be that Americans who believe that rules should apply to the executive will come out and do what the senate will not, vote to remove a lawless president.

If Trump had tried to run for president in Nixon’s time his total votes would have been in single digits. Republicans in those days were sane.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom