Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VI

aloyisious

abff wrote: »

Sorry? I think I'm having a hallucination. Is Outlaw Pete really complaining about arguing ad hominem?

It might be that you got a whiff of the cannabis some-one [not quite sure who] posted about the Dems legalizing in the US, in a distraction from what was actually being discussed here.

Outlaw Pete

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your post above, two questions for you. If you think Col Vindman is a leaker, why, [in your opinion] is President Trump still keeping him on at the White House as a serving member of the NSC team there? Is the President going along as an accomplice with the leaking you think Col Vindman is doing?

Fcuk knows. Perhaps they have no hard evidence and waiting for it before acting.

Look at the fallout he got re Yovanovitch, so could also be just bidding their time.

I'd say they have a close watch on him and his activities.

Be interesting to hear what Hill has to say tomorrow about him. For sure she'll be asked.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Fcuk knows. Perhaps they have no hard evidence and waiting for it before acting.

Look at the fallout he got re Yovanovitch, so could also be just bidding their time.

I'd say they have a close watch on him and his activities.

Be interesting to hear what Hill has to say tomorrow about him. For sure she'll be asked.

You reckon the White House is keeping their enemies close and their friends closer then?

Outlaw Pete

duploelabs wrote: »

When this fact initially came to light, I asked Pete 5 times with no answer as to why that transcript was moved to that secure server, funny that we're getting this wishy washy excuse now.

Nothing "funny" about the timing - the transcripts were only released a few days ago (republicans had been requesting them for weeks).

So Pete, to back this up, if it was moved by mistake, why is still being withheld now?

Haha. Love how you're asking me as if I just made it up or something. I quoted you the testimony of Morrison.

As for why it's still there now, who cares. The transcript has been released. Morrison, Vindman and Williams all say its accurate. Don't tell me you're still holding on to the notion that what we have seen is just a summary of the call? That nonsense was debunked yonks ago.

Here's a little more testimony from Morrison to that end (you can read it all here yourself if you like):

Thargor

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing "funny" about the timing - the transcripts were only released a few days ago (republicans had been requesting them for weeks).



Haha. Love how you're asking me as if I just made it up or something. I quoted you the testimony of Morrison.

As for why it's still there now, who cares. The transcript has been released. Morrison, Vindman and Williams all say its accurate. Don't tell me you're still holding on to the notion that what we have seen is just a summary of the call? That nonsense was debunked yonks ago.

Here's a little more testimony from Morrison to that end (you can read it all here yourself if you like):

How was "Vindman outed as leaking information" as you claim?

Outlaw Pete

aloyisious wrote: »

Are you throwing Sondland and Rudy under the bus by indicating anything they state in their testimonies is shaky and unreliable due to their being unhinged [whatever that means]?

I've always said Rudy was an idiot. He rambles too much. Surprised he was ever a lawyer tbh.

As for Sondland, I'm just basing my views of him from the testimony of others. So far it seems nobody liked him and thought him full of himself and as you can see from Morrison's testimony, he doubted if he was accurately parsing what Trump wanted at all. Even Sondland himself testified that Trump was frustrated with him to the point of effectively hanging up on him.

Mulveney, Pomeo, Pence and Bolton are the ones whose testimony the democrats would really need to secure a conviction to the extent that Trump intended to bribe Zelensky - but without it, there just is no case.

Sondland might have been enough but he has changed his story and you just can't get around the fact he told Taylor that Trump had said he wanted nothing from Zelensky, no QPQs.

Water John

Sondland and Giuliani were the two with direct line to the President.
It's that simple.

We don't need to know what Sondland thought. The overheard telephone with the President told us exactly what the President wanted.

Water John

Lt Vindman reminds me of Garda McCabe. He's calling out wrongdoing.

aloyisious

Listening to Ambassador Volker's testimony, the GOP counsel may have found a hole in the wall by getting Ambassador Volker to say he was not happy with Lt Col Vindman going to the lawyer to report the content of the Presidents Trump & Zelensky conversation instead of coming to him first, reporting the matter to him and leave it to him to bring it to the lawyer.

In reality, it's just a matter of White House NSA staff protocol but it seems Col Vindman may have gotten Ambassador's Volker's back up by going direct to the lawyer. I reckon the GOP counsel will return to it to try get Ambassador Volker say there were other issues between him and Col Vindman. We'll have to wait and see how the GOP counsel restarts in the next session.

everlast75

aloyisious wrote: »

Listening to Ambassador Volker's testimony, the GOP counsel may have found a hole in the wall by getting Ambassador Volker to say he was not happy with Lt Col Vindman going to the lawyer to report the content of the Presidents Trump & Zelensky conversation instead of coming to him first, reporting the matter to him and leave it to him to bring it to the lawyer.

In reality, it's just a matter of White House NSA staff protocol but it seems Col Vindman may have gotten Ambassador's Volker's back up by going direct to the lawyer. I reckon the GOP counsel will return to it to try get Ambassador Volker say there were other issues between him and Col Vindman. We'll have to wait and see how the GOP counsel restarts in the next session.

Volker was one of the 3 amigos.

Why on earth would Vindman trust him?

And while Volker "might" have an issue with him, Fiona Hill didn't.

This is all a distraction - Vindman gave credible evidence and was a compelling witness. He was right when he said there were words missing from the transcript.

Water John

That's actually Morrison was above Vindman.
But Morrison also went to the lawyer himself as well. He can't be complaining about his junior.

everlast75

https://twitter.com/MikeScarcella/status/1196925230075301888?s=19

Plus, Summer Zervos' case to proceed, Trump to be deposed in January lol

Water John

Goldman holed Volker below the water line. Volker's recollection of a meeting saying investigations in Ukraine were not mentioned but two note taking aides have it in their notes.
Has happened again, that's twice!!

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I've always said Rudy was an idiot. He rambles too much. Surprised he was ever a lawyer tbh.

As for Sondland, I'm just basing my views of him from the testimony of others. So far it seems nobody liked him and thought him full of himself and as you can see from Morrison's testimony, he doubted if he was accurately parsing what Trump wanted at all. Even Sondland himself testified that Trump was frustrated with him to the point of effectively hanging up on him.

Mulveney, Pomeo, Pence and Bolton are the ones whose testimony the democrats would really need to secure a conviction to the extent that Trump intended to bribe Zelensky - but without it, there just is no case.

Sondland might have been enough but he has changed his story and you just can't get around the fact he told Taylor that Trump had said he wanted nothing from Zelensky, no QPQs.

I'll mostly agree with you on almost everything in your post, except for the QPQ, whereby Don wanted Zelensky to make a public announcement that the Bidens and their connection to the Ukraine Co would be investigated in respect of corruption within Ukraine and the removal of Don's withholding of the funding from the senate was dependant on Zelkensky making that public announcement.

Don's ambassadors [plural] have testified to Dons stipulation on that being part of the deal: US Senate cash $ in exchange for a Ukraine corruption investigation into the Biden and the Ukraine Co Biden Jnr was a board member of. The QPQ quote may not be there in the wording of Don's deal offer but Don's block on the funding [I've got you over a barrel and there's F-all you can do about it] is there for everyone to see. Give me what I want or else.

Edit: please read though my post carefully as I've made some word additions to mu original wording in respect of the Bidens.

aloyisious

Umm, even Mr Schiff is going after Ambassador Volker now about his faulty memory and previous testimony to the committee. It might be unusual to see him question Ambassador Volker on something Mr Castor worked loose BUT.... Umm, is Mr Morrison becoming a 4th amigo?

Volker did not answer the last question about what Giuliani said to him, just offered his opinion on it. There was no plain "Mr Giuliani did not say anything about an investigation into the Bidens and Burisma". His questioner had said he didn't want to hear of any feelings.

EltonJohn69

So Trump hasn’t been seen since his unscheduled visit to the hospital last Saturday ?

aloyisious

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

So Trump hasn’t been seen since his unscheduled visit to the hospital last Saturday ?

He was on CNN news earlier today at a group media meeting in the Oval Office responding to questions from journalists. He said he had been watching the committee session and mentioned the nice bow tie worn by one of the persons testifying yesterday and said he might get one for himself. I assumed it was a live meeting.

aloyisious

Wow, Mr Jordan SEEMS to be giving Ambassador Volker hell now. Ah, he's trying to slip in the idea that no one mentioned a QPQ in any form at all and there was never any worry for the Ukraine about it not getting the funding Don had ordered withheld. Mr Jordan just didn't mention the OMB review reason given by the White House as the reason for the with-holding of the funds.

TomOnBoard

Well, that was a long day! While there did not appear to be any bombshells, I did find that, of all witnesses, Morrison was least convincing. He came across to me as less than candid and very arrogant, while Volker was very credible as were the two morning witnesses.

Nunes was a pathetic fool, while Jordan was... Jordan! Schiff managed it well, and I found both Volker's opening and Schiff's closing statements to be very well presented.

And we still have good ole Gordon to watch tomorrow. I ordered popcorn in my local shop for the morning, but they're sold out!!

aloyisious

I was wondering about how Mr Schiff is able to keep his cool under pressure from Mr Nunes in respect to his handling of the legal moves and rulebook in committee. He's a former federal prosecutor from LA. Wiki:After Harvard Law School, Schiff began working as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

TomOnBoard

aloyisious wrote: »

I was wondering about how Mr Schiff is able to keep his cool under pressure from Mr Nunes in respect to his handling of the legal moves and rulebook in committee. He's a former federal prosecutor from LA. Wiki:After Harvard Law School, Schiff began working as a prosecutor in the Los Angeles branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office.

I can see why Wise Nancy put his Committee in the lead role rather than Judiciary...

I suppose you could say he is showing grace under fire, unlike some of the other clowns who are trying to goad him. And when he speaks, at least he can be understood, unlike the 'gentleman' to his left... It's ironic that the Rankng Member of the Intelligence Committee has hardly shown an ounce of intelligence since these hearings began. His naked attempts yesterday to read the debunked Biden conspiracy theory into the House record along with his cavalier attempts to out the whistleblower were pathetic.

None of what we're hearing will change anything in the minds of Trump's base. If anything, they will rally around Trump and blame Rudy and Sondland for getting Dear Leader into trouble. It's the persuadable undecided voters who will be seeing the evidence being presented as troubling at least, and Trump's patterns of behaviour intolerable.

Hopefully, Gordon has been well advised to 'fess-up' today, having regard to what happened to Cohen and Stone for protecting The Don by lying to Congress. Standby for a massive unloading onto Rudy, whose feet can hardly be seen now that he's so far under the bus.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Nothing "funny" about the timing - the transcripts were only released a few days ago (republicans had been requesting them for weeks).



Haha. Love how you're asking me as if I just made it up or something. I quoted you the testimony of Morrison.

As for why it's still there now, who cares. The transcript has been released.Morrison, Vindman and Williams all say its accurate. Don't tell me you're still holding on to the notion that what we have seen is just a summary of the call? That nonsense was debunked yonks ago.

Here's a little more testimony from Morrison to that end (you can read it all here yourself if you like):

No - The Transcripts have not been released , all we've seen so far are "summaries", the verbatim transcripts have absolutely not been released.

You are correct in that Vindman etc. say that the summary of the July calls are an accurate representation of the substance of the call they are absolutely not transcripts.

Why haven't they released the full text of the calls yet?

jooksavage

Today is the big one. Sondland is back in the morning. It seems inevitable that he'll start to recall some previously omitted information. This is basically his last chance to get everything out there. If he lies today and the next AG is appointed by a Dem president, he's screwed. I don't see him holding out - he's not an out-and-out Trumpist and he's already made changes to his closed-door testimony. I expect today he'll remember the restaurant phone call. If that happens, I honestly don't know how the R's will respond. Probably something like "Media bias... blah blah"

Cody montana

jooksavage wrote: »

Today is the big one. Sondland is back in the morning. It seems inevitable that he'll start to recall some previously omitted information. This is basically his last chance to get everything out there. If he lies today and the next AG is appointed by a Dem president, he's screwed. I don't see him holding out - he's not an out-and-out Trumpist and he's already made changes to his closed-door testimony. I expect today he'll remember the restaurant phone call. If that happens, I honestly don't know how the R's will respond. Probably something like "Media bias... blah blah"

This could be a turning point.
We shall remain cautious though.

Penn

jooksavage wrote: »

Today is the big one. Sondland is back in the morning. It seems inevitable that he'll start to recall some previously omitted information. This is basically his last chance to get everything out there. If he lies today and the next AG is appointed by a Dem president, he's screwed. I don't see him holding out - he's not an out-and-out Trumpist and he's already made changes to his closed-door testimony. I expect today he'll remember the restaurant phone call. If that happens, I honestly don't know how the R's will respond. Probably something like "Media bias... blah blah"

Also shows exactly why the Dems started off closed hearings, then when it becomes obvious what people have said in the closed hearings start the public hearings with those furthest away from the call and who would be less inclined to try hide the truth. They make it harder for Sondland to be able to omit anything and gives the Dems reason to ask particular questions.

Quin_Dub

jooksavage wrote: »

Today is the big one. Sondland is back in the morning. It seems inevitable that he'll start to recall some previously omitted information. This is basically his last chance to get everything out there. If he lies today and the next AG is appointed by a Dem president, he's screwed. I don't see him holding out - he's not an out-and-out Trumpist and he's already made changes to his closed-door testimony. I expect today he'll remember the restaurant phone call. If that happens, I honestly don't know how the R's will respond. Probably something like "Media bias... blah blah"

You've got to assume that the 1st question by the Democrats will be about the reported phone call from the restaurant.

That's the key one that ties Trump to the whole thing - If they get him to confirm it and the major substance of the call then any attempts by Trump et al to try to frame this as a solo run by Sondland/Guiliani will be busted.

Not that it will make much of a difference to be honest , at least for now.

The house will vote for impeachment , that's a given and the Senate will acquit - The only interesting thing will be to see how many people vote against the partisan view.

How many House GOP or Senate reps will vote against Trump? - There will be a few at least.

Will Joe Manchin vote with the Democrats in the Senate?

pixelburp

Quin_Dub wrote: »

How many House GOP or Senate reps will vote against Trump? - There will be a few at least.

Will Joe Manchin vote with the Democrats in the Senate?

Do you really think so? We've seen in the past with votes like the failed Medicare repeal, or the SC picks, that senators such as Susanne Collins will talk a big game of concern and thoughtfulness, only to ultimately side with the party. Perhaps impeachment is a different ball game but as has been said - including by yourself - until the polling needle swings away from full, partisan support, senators are unlikely to vote against their interests.

ECO_Mental

jooksavage wrote: »

Today is the big one. Sondland is back in the morning. It seems inevitable that he'll start to recall some previously omitted information. This is basically his last chance to get everything out there. If he lies today and the next AG is appointed by a Dem president, he's screwed. I don't see him holding out - he's not an out-and-out Trumpist and he's already made changes to his closed-door testimony. I expect today he'll remember the restaurant phone call. If that happens, I honestly don't know how the R's will respond. Probably something like "Media bias... blah blah"

Yeah really looking forward to Sondland today, Dem Counsel will take him apart, this guy is key to the whole debacle (apart from Trump, Perry, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guilliani and his Russian mafia buddies). Hopfully seeing Stone going to Jail for lying to congress will make him realize is it worth spending a couple of years in the Big House for this orange Buffoon.


On another note, early on in this whole debacle and sham of a presidency one of the key people on my dream list to do porridge was Rodger Stone :cool::cool::cool: He was a despicable human being with no obvious qualities. Spent his whole life lying, cheating, playing dirty tricks all for the win. And I mean all his life....he started in primary school:mad: lying and making stuff up about a child who was running for hall monitor or something. If anybody is feeling sorry for him look at the Netflix show "Get me Rodger Stone" Don't forget he played a major role in getting GW Bush elected in that sham election in Florida years ago.



Good times :D:D I hope there are loads of people there on his sentencing day wearing the "Hillary for Prison" T-Shirts that he was selling in 2016. How sweet is karma!

duploelabs

You gotta love the talking points rolled out by the republicans. After Taylor and Kent's testimony, it was 'ARGH THEY HAD NO FIRST HAND KNOWLEDGE OF THE CALL' 'iT'S ALL HEARSAY' 'WE NEED PEOPLE WHO HEARD THE CALL'.

Then when yesterday's witnesses testified of that first hand knowledge of the calls, it was 'ARGH THEY'RE A MOLE' 'THEY'RE NEVER TRUMPERS' 'THEY'RE THE WHISTLEBLOWER'

Overheal

“ Think about how pathetic it is to watch these men and women pick apart the inches of insight that these men and women who have testified so far have about the decisions that others have made, instructions others gave them, and yet leave yards of truth untouched.” - Chris Cuomo

Saw that on MediaITE this morning and thought that summed up the Republican strategy so far.