On this impeachment thing
- Thread starter kescwi
- Start date
Delicious GLASS ?? How about a 55 gallon Drum ????
You find the radical spin amusing on CNN and MSNBC ??
We can find more accurate political news on the CARTOON NETWORK than with 2/3 of FoxNews' lineup. Chris Wallace and Shep Smith excepted.
If BBC is possibly too far left for your taste, who then , other than Fox, are your go-to sources for news ??
He hasn’t taken a vote on common sense gun laws that are bipartisan and a majority of the country wants to see action on....
Didn’t think something as partisan and that less than 50% of the country thought should happen prior to the whistleblower stuff would be taken up on the floor so quickly.
I thought it would happen but would have taken an excruciating amount of pressure.
Rudy tells Laura Ingraham he was acting on orders of the State Department.
This is Alex Jones level stuff. Like Tootsie's mea culpa at the end. Gotta watch this.
This is Alex Jones level stuff. Like Tootsie's mea culpa at the end. Gotta watch this.
Something about some straw and how much of it can safely be placed on this certain camel's back might have something to do with it.
So to you, having someone relay 2nd hand information to you is exactly the same as getting it directly from the source? OMG, I can't believe anyone can be that ignorant. I feel bad for you, that you can't recognize the difference, but it explains a lot.
When folks are quoting verbatim what they see on Fox, when they get on Facebook and link to Fox News “stories” and then post their own commentary, when I see links of videos of Hannity or Tucker or Laura Ingraham, that’s all I need. That isn’t second hand dude. It’s also not ignorance. There’s only one ignorant one in this exchange bud and it’s not me. I’m not the Fox sheep.
It’ll be funny when the transcripts are released and the Dems try to spin the conversation into something it wasn’t.
The most nervous person in the room is actually Joe Biden for wielding his influence as VP to get his son a $600K job with the Ukraine govt.
Did this nugget of nothing come from Tucker, Sean or Laura? Or was it the hollowed out cavern in Gulianis head where a brain once resided?
I wonder how much, if any, of the decision to move now with an impeachment inquiry was to ensure that Congress gets to see both the transcript of the call and the whistleblower report. After all, Trump has a history of stonewalling legitimate (if sometimes seemingly nitpicky) requests and could probably have been expected to do the same here. But once the formal inquiry is announced, I see reports that the whistleblower report will be in Congress' hands by tomorrow.
The thing about this Ukraine situation is that, in my opinion, it's more serious than the other stuff that Trump's been accused of. (I am curious how different the narrative would be if this were the first investigation rather than the next in a long series). I don't believe he intentionally colluded - though it is clear that Russia wanted him to win and absolutely interfered in the process to make it happen. I think it's problematic that he is making money from the Presidency by sending everyone associated with the government to stay at Trump resorts, but allegedly blackmailing another country to get them to investigate a political rival is a whole new level.
Insofar as the impeachment inquiry is intended to get to the bottom of the phone call and find out, either way, whether Trump did something wrong (and it is possible that he didn't), I think it's important and necessary. What concerns me, though, is the assumption that Trump absolutely did something criminal here. It would be better if the Dems approached it - and would have been better in all the previous investigations - from a standpoint of "We aren't assuming Trump is guilty, we just want to get to the truth."
The thing about this Ukraine situation is that, in my opinion, it's more serious than the other stuff that Trump's been accused of. (I am curious how different the narrative would be if this were the first investigation rather than the next in a long series). I don't believe he intentionally colluded - though it is clear that Russia wanted him to win and absolutely interfered in the process to make it happen. I think it's problematic that he is making money from the Presidency by sending everyone associated with the government to stay at Trump resorts, but allegedly blackmailing another country to get them to investigate a political rival is a whole new level.
Insofar as the impeachment inquiry is intended to get to the bottom of the phone call and find out, either way, whether Trump did something wrong (and it is possible that he didn't), I think it's important and necessary. What concerns me, though, is the assumption that Trump absolutely did something criminal here. It would be better if the Dems approached it - and would have been better in all the previous investigations - from a standpoint of "We aren't assuming Trump is guilty, we just want to get to the truth."
I think the leverage of aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating Biden was implicit, and Trump has reached a point where he figures he can get away with just about anything he wants as long as he's not caught with his own personal hand in the cookie jar. And that's probably what will happen here - there will be no direct red flag, but most with common sense will understand what went on, and we'll move forward with this jackass in the White House for at least 16 more months.
This explanation screams bag men and blue blood basketball programs, doesn't it? I mean, the similarities are there when it comes to trying to explain away how and why the law was broken.
Just a quick reminder or a FYI, there is no transcript of nearly any Presidential phone calls. They are not taped, nor is there a stenographer. The norm is that about 5 national security, state dept., White House assts., etc. each take independent notes of the conversation and they are compared for consistency upon completion of the conversation. They are not transcriptions of the words used nor are they intended to be. I am not trying to suggest that they are inaccurate in what they are.
We are going to know immediately if the "transcript" is a transcript because we have all heard him speak. It might be a fun exercise to compare the released "transcript" with other transcripts of him answering questions.
We already know that it is not going to be verbatim of the conversation. There are usually two people listening in on the call, taking notes. As 70Boiler said above, it is more like an executive summary.
Now, what would be interesting would be to put the two people who were listening to the phone conversation on the stand. They are the ones who could directly verify if the president mentioned Biden in relation to the aid money.
I am pretty callous but I was shocked reading the document. How utterly overt.
Read the damned thing...I gave you a link to it above.
I'm shocked the white house released this document. I assume the actual whistle-blower complaint is worse than this? If so, wow.
"I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say
Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the
whole situation..."
JFC - he's talking about Hillary's emails?
Ukraine has it. There- are a lot. of things that went on, the
whole situation..."
JFC - he's talking about Hillary's emails?
This is interesting:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Memorandum of Phone Conversation: call was 9:03 - 9:33<br><br>Estimated time it would take to say all of the words released in the memo: 11 minutes.<br><br>Checked by the great <a href="https://twitter.com/mike_melia?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@mike_melia</a> in our broadcast software (time of spoken words matters a lot on TV) from <a href="https://twitter.com/NewsHour?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@NewsHour</a></p>— Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) <a href="">September 25, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Memorandum of Phone Conversation: call was 9:03 - 9:33<br><br>Estimated time it would take to say all of the words released in the memo: 11 minutes.<br><br>Checked by the great <a href="https://twitter.com/mike_melia?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@mike_melia</a> in our broadcast software (time of spoken words matters a lot on TV) from <a href="https://twitter.com/NewsHour?ref_src=twsrc^tfw">@NewsHour</a></p>— Lisa Desjardins (@LisaDNews) <a href="">September 25, 2019</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
I'm just quoting this because it deserves to be re-read again by so many on this thread. Seems this was posted and then just passed over and ignored. Well said BuilderBob.
You should come around more often. Obviously an intelligent person.
I was thinking about that as well. I honestly hope that it is a full release. It will actually sadden me tremendously if it is not. My distaste for Trump is nothing compared to my respect for the Office itself and the possibility of an event besmirching it similarly to the Nixonian activities is abhorrent and repugnant.
Per the same polling data that had Clinton winning in a landslide.
Ha! We’ve only been hearing that for 3 years. Guess I’ll get used to hearing it for 5 more.
It’s “you’re”... and, Wanna bet?
Trump’s going to be your president until January 2025. The sooner you accept that, the happier you miserable Statist will be. Life’s great, start enjoying it and not getting your panties in a wad over fabricated narratives.
I thought the Mueller witchhunt was the greatest in the history of our country?
The idea that Trump thinks this transcript is a positive clearly shows his judgement sucks.
The idea that Trump thinks this transcript is a positive clearly shows his judgement sucks.
By all means, don't look at the evidence. Just assume all things remain the same.
Again, this is not supposed to be verbatim. While it does read like a typical Trump speech (and holy crap, if this is accurate, could the Ukrainian president be more of a brown-noser?), there could have been 10 minutes worth of platitudes and formalities that were discarded from the notes because they were not relevant to the transcript.
I initially thought that there could have also been translator delays, but the Ukrainian president does speak English fluently.
I will never get over why people put a man like Trump over the good of the country as a whole. I will never understand that mentality.
Mitch Romney - I read the whole thing and it remains troubling, in the extreme.
Ok, I have completely changed my mind based upon this cogent and compelling argument. I am now a Trump 2020 guy. You have convinced me... well, maybe not so much!!!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
To our liberal, progressive friends on here...
- Latest: BCfanatic2020
-
-
-
