• 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.
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...


If the transcript had included Trump saying he had some sort of evidence implicating the Bidens in something worth investigating, the obvious question from an impeachment inquiry would be, what is it? It would be rather embarrassing if it was a figment of Trump's imagination.

Vindman also seems to confirm what the whistleblower said, that Trump talked about investigating the Bidens roughly eight times, but there aren't that many in the transcript. Perhaps that looked a little obsessive?
 
plague311 said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is the key, they actually thought the released transcript was "clean" of any wrongdoing because there are not enough seasoned pros on his team willing to point out the glaring problems. "Get used to it!"
 
The Great Zaganza said:
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.
Click to expand...
Oh, sure, Vindman's testimony as a whole is very important. I'm not disputing that at all.

That was a very bad day for the GOP.
 
Dr. Keith said:
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.
Click to expand...
Philip Bump had a good article on that point in WAPO today. I'll agree with that. It's just that Vindman's proposed edits weren't a grand smoking gun that I had hoped for when I learned about them.
 
Dr. Keith said:
This is the key, they actually thought the released transcript was "clean" of any wrongdoing because there are not enough seasoned pros on his team willing to point out the glaring problems. "Get used to it!"
Click to expand...
Yes, Trump seems to genuinely believe that the transcript exonerates him, at least to the extent he genuinely believes anything at all.

I wonder if he was told not to say certain things he wanted to say and regards his not saying those things as perfect.
 
Trump has claimed several times that the 'transcript' was an 'exact' transcription of the call which we now know is not true.
I'm trying to feel some shock but failing miserably.
 
phiwum said:
Philip Bump had a good article on that point in WAPO today. I'll agree with that. It's just that Vindman's proposed edits weren't a grand smoking gun that I had hoped for when I learned about them.
Click to expand...

The original transcript is a smoking gun. The fact that it is the "clean" version just shows they wiped the barrel instead of the grip.
 
Stacyhs said:
Trump has claimed several times that the 'transcript' was an 'exact' transcription of the call which we now know is not true.
I'm trying to feel some shock but failing miserably.
Click to expand...
Anyone want to guess if Trump starts using that as an excuse?

"Sure the transcript looks bad but it differs from what I said. My call was perfect but its obvious the transcript was made by a never-Trumper in the deep state who made up stuff to make me look bad".
 
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...

Oh my word. You can't see any specificity in exactly which words were left out?

Huge as in volumes is not an issue. Huge as in significant can't be denied. I don't see why you are still trying.
 
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...

What are you looking for that would be damaging, some direct explicit statement this is a quid pro quo? :boggled:

Paraphrased, "If you investigate Biden and his son, and implicate Ukraine colluding with the DNC in 2016, your aid and weapons purchase will be forthcoming."

How do you interpret the call?

Keep in mind just asking Zelensky to smear Biden and imply it wasn't Russia it was Ukraine and the DNC would be an impeachable offense even without the extortion.

Also keep in mind, Trump wanted to create a cloud over Biden, evidence doesn't matter.

And Trump wants to get rid of the Russian interference story, shift blame to the DNC. That's absurd! Why would the DNC want to see Trump elected? :boggled:
 
To torture the metaphor a bit the problem is the gun is never going to be "smoking" because Trump won't stop firing it long enough.

Trump's firing the gun into the air nonstop. There isn't a "smoking gun" in that scenario, there's one in active use.
 
Or to use a slightly different metaphor you don't have to argue "Where's the smoke there is fire" when you can see the actual fire.

We keep looking for evidence of things Trump is openly admitted he's doing and has no intention of stopping doing and is going "Yeah I'm doing it, dare you to do something about it."
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Oh my word. You can't see any specificity in exactly which words were left out?

Huge as in volumes is not an issue. Huge as in significant can't be denied. I don't see why you are still trying.
Click to expand...

Stacy said they were willing to release the transcript because it didn't include everything said. The things that Vindman said were not part of the transcript really wouldn't have made it any more damning.

Look, this is proof (as if any were needed) that the transcript isn't verbatim as Trump has claimed. Other than that, this part of Vindman's testimony is not particularly important. Yes, the two bits he mentioned had to do with Burisma/Biden, but we knew he had brought that up.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
What are you looking for that would be damaging, some direct explicit statement this is a quid pro quo? :boggled:

Paraphrased, "If you investigate Biden and his son, and implicate Ukraine colluding with the DNC in 2016, your aid and weapons purchase will be forthcoming."

How do you interpret the call?
Click to expand...

It wasn't nearly as explicit as you make out, but never mind. You're talking about the original transcript which is, yes, very good evidence against Trump. I was talking about whether the new information that the transcript lacked two requested edits was startling and damning news. Don't seem like anything gamechanging to me.

Keep in mind just asking Zelensky to smear Biden and imply it wasn't Russia it was Ukraine and the DNC would be an impeachable offense even without the extortion.

Also keep in mind, Trump wanted to create a cloud over Biden, evidence doesn't matter.

And Trump wants to get rid of the Russian interference story, shift blame to the DNC. That's absurd! Why would the DNC want to see Trump elected? :boggled:
Click to expand...

You're just mighty confused about my position. You really ought to read a little slower and see what I'm saying and what I'm not saying.

In particular, I agree that Trump's actions are worthy of impeachment and removal. The former will happen, the latter is unlikely so far. I haven't said a damned thing to the contrary, but you seem to be trying to convince me of an opinion I already hold.
 
phiwum said:
Stacy said they were willing to release the transcript because it didn't include everything said. The things that Vindman said were not part of the transcript really wouldn't have made it any more damning.

Look, this is proof (as if any were needed) that the transcript isn't verbatim as Trump has claimed. Other than that, this part of Vindman's testimony is not particularly important. Yes, the two bits he mentioned had to do with Burisma/Biden, but we knew he had brought that up.
Click to expand...

I think the important part in this scenario is that a person with first hand knowledge of the situation testified as to the details of the case. Including adding details previously unknown about the events of the call.

It's not so much that those new facts were more damning, it's that his testimony reinforced the already damning parts.
 
plague311 said:
I think the important part in this scenario is that a person with first hand knowledge of the situation testified as to the details of the case. Including adding details previously unknown about the events of the call.

It's not so much that those new facts were more damning, it's that his testimony reinforced the already damning parts.
Click to expand...

Some of the new facts were damning. The facts of how the July 10 meeting fell apart, followed by a new meeting which then fell apart, were new to me, though maybe Hill covered them. The fact that Vindman personally took Sondland to task was new and contradicted Sondland's testimony. That is important.

I'm not saying that Vindman was a bust. I think it was a very important appearance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom