impeachment inquiry hearings thread

[Bama Chick 28596]

I'm calling it now: if the Senate actually votes to convict, the remaining Trump supporters will liken it to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

[Goredho 17408]

1 hour ago, Pig Bellmont said:

This is very different. A majority of the country supports impeachment and removal of office. This admission will make those numbers worse. Politically, on the same day they announced the G7 to be hosted at Doral, will be the political death of the GOP in 2020. 

And a majority of people voted for Hillary.  What matters are the opinions of voters in Kentucky, South Dakota and the like.  And this should tell you how that is going:

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) reelection campaign is seizing on the fight over impeachment, pledging in Facebook ads that he will lead Republican efforts to stop President Trump from being removed from office.

 

"Nancy Pelosi's in the clutches of a left wing mob. They finally convinced her to impeach the president. All of you know your Constitution, the way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority with me as majority leader," McConnell says in an ad that began running on Thursday.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464379-mcconnell-vows-to-block-trump-impeachment-in-fundraising-pitch

Edited October 17, 2019 by Goredho

[henrygandorf 29192]

9 minutes ago, Goredho said:

And a majority of people voted for Hillary.  What matters are the opinions of voters in Kentucky, South Dakota and the like.  And this should tell you how that is going:

 

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) reelection campaign is seizing on the fight over impeachment, pledging in Facebook ads that he will lead Republican efforts to stop President Trump from being removed from office.

 

"Nancy Pelosi's in the clutches of a left wing mob. They finally convinced her to impeach the president. All of you know your Constitution, the way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority with me as majority leader," McConnell says in an ad that began running on Thursday.

 

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/464379-mcconnell-vows-to-block-trump-impeachment-in-fundraising-pitch

yeah, that was a couple weeks ago.

since then, mcconnell has been suspiciously quiet.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

Edited October 17, 2019 by suddenly shaggy
Ah! Well. Never the less.

[Anastasis 23475]

59 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

This should never be forgotten:  The ask itself is the crime.

The only reason "NO quid pro quo" came out was as a right wing red herring talking point. 

But since we now have quid pro quo admitted by both the President and the Chief of Staff, it just bolsters the point that the illegal ask was made.  

Technically, I think that quid pro quo came out as the crucial component in the early reporting of the exchange.  I recall "promise" and "quid pro quo" at the time.  Which is probably was elicited the talking point in response.

[sheeeit 129]

9 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the first whistleblower didn't hear it directly.  and we don't have any proof that the first whistleblower (or the 2nd really) is anti-trump.  we don't have anything showing zaid is either, just that he's interested in whistleblower process and protection.  i know this is how trump talks and what he wants everyone to believe, so you should try harder not to fall for it.  just because you're concerned about what trump is doing doesn't make you (1) a traitor, (2) a socialist, (3) a never-trumper, (4) anti-american.

you said "lots of people who heard the call were unsympathetic to trump".  so far you've listed one person (the 2nd whistleblower) who may or may not be unsympathetic to trump.  you also listed people who spoke to the 1st whistleblower?  uh, sure man.

after 3 years, most of the trump-haters left govt work because of shit like this.  i highly doubt there are a bunch of secret anti-trump spooks wandering the west wing.

Well I am not going to quibble over the definition of "lots".  If you read the whistle blowers account he talks about having heard about the call and how bad it was from multiple people.  It is one of the ways he "corroborated" his story.  That this wasn't just one disgruntled Trump hater but multiple people who had either listened to the call or had direct knowledge of it and thought it was worth reporting.   Right?  Then you have the 2nd whistle blower who, allegedly, did have direct knowledge of the call and has also come forward.  So there are, seemingly, many people that have heard the call or have direct knowledge of it that have a problem with it.  Yes?

Perhaps you are unhappy with the word unsympathetic.  Fine.  I used that term to mean that they would be extremely unlikely to "cover" for Trump.  Lets agree that these were honest and good people that truly thought the call was dangerous and were willing to expose themselves to the absolute shit show they knew was likely going to come as a result.  I am fine with that and think it is entirely possible or even likely.  But the point still stands.  These people did come forward.  They are already out there and, at least 2 of them have lawyers.  You really believe that they would sit still and let Trump lie about the phone call at this point?  They felt strong enough to come forward but are now going to be silent?  The call transcript has been out there for a while now.  It is incomprehensible to me that if it was a watered down version of the call that the whistle blowers or the people they talked to would not have come forward to dispute it.  It would bolster their case tremendously.

As for Zaid, again my saying he is unsympathetic to Trump means he would never cover for him.  Although his past tweets do indicate at least a bit of animosity towards Trump.  Here is one:

"Amazing that every day seems to get worse with how pathetically embarrassing this President is. Never grows. Never learns. And no one around him can exercise meaningful control or influence. Our country will have work to do once he's out of office."

This doesn't make him biased or bad or even wrong.  The point being that if Trump were brazenly lying about the call, Zaid would know and Zaid would not cover for him.

[Dbeasy 15068]

Ok, you win. White House admitted today that it was quid pro quo.
So now what's your position?

He will get back to you as soon as he has a chance to watch Tucker Carlson for guidance.

[WBT 20617]

54 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

No, no.... I mean.....OTHER than that.

Neverfucking mind the irony of an administration with deep personal business ties and lucrative deals with corrupt foreign countries, including substantial involvement by his son....and daughter.....and son-in-law.....being "deeply concerned about the business ties of the child of a member of the executive branch with a corrupt foreign power."

It's as if Trump was the new crusader for investigating politicians who paid off porn stars they fucked with their mushroom dick.  Irony is fucking dead.

This is a good point.  Even if this scheme went off without a hitch, how exactly could trump use biden's corruption in a reelection campaign?

[suddenly shaggy 929]

1 minute ago, WBT said:

This is a good point.  Even if this scheme went off without a hitch, how exactly could trump use biden's corruption in a reelection campaign?

It's already been effective, even having been exposed as a scam. People talking about it leads people to believe there is something there. 40% of Democrats now think we need to have a conversation about Biden and Ukraine. A plurality of American's believe Biden pressured Ukraine. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/01/ukraine-story-appears-be-hurting-trump-possibly-biden-too/

That 45-36 split on whether Trump at least applied pressure on Zelensky is actually very similar to the split on whether Biden applied pressure on Ukraine to stop investigating his son — 42 percent to 37 percent. A plurality of Americans say it is “probably” true that Biden “put pressure on Ukrainian officials to get them not to investigate his son’s business dealings there.”

[sheeeit 129]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

Here's a quick thought to ponder.

These folks who are unsympathetic to Trump.....were they always super-skilled deep-state moles, who put themselves in place just waiting to pounce as part of some elaborate scheme (likely run out of the basement of a pizza parlor) or.....are they just regular folks, who have worked for this country for some time, and believe in some pretty elementary norms and standards, and upon seeing those casually and frequently violated by someone to serve his own personal interest, then CONCLUDED that "hey, I'm not sympathetic to this guy?"

That's the fucking amazing thing.  It's the amazing defense a raging asshole asserts.  After being a blatant asshole to everyone in sight, when someone calls him an asshole, says "see, that person hates me!  You can't listen to what they have to say about me being an asshole, they're biased!"  You fuckstick, YOUR ASSHOLERY IS WHAT MADE THEM BIASED.  It's an amazing world -- the fact that he's an asshole who makes people loathe him means that he is immune from all criticism for being an asshole.

The GOP has sold their soul to a course of conduct that, if a Democrat embarked upon it, would actually BE the end of the Republic -- I mean, maybe....he'd probably already have been assassinated by now by those good "second amendment people."  Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.  I'm honestly looking forward - in a schadenfreude way - to the future "AOC, but after she decides to be totally unethical" administration.  Y'all's heads will explode.  Every thing that you've insisted is "very legal, very cool" will come back to bite your asses clean off.  Sure, the Republic will be in even further shambles, but shit, that ship has SAILED.

Wow.  Feel better?  I hope so.

[henrygandorf 29192]

11 minutes ago, sheeeit said:

Perhaps you are unhappy with the word unsympathetic.  Fine.  I used that term to mean that they would be extremely unlikely to "cover" for Trump.  Lets agree that these were honest and good people that truly thought the call was dangerous and were willing to expose themselves to the absolute shit show they knew was likely going to come as a result.  I am fine with that and think it is entirely possible or even likely.  But the point still stands.  These people did come forward.  They are already out there and, at least 2 of them have lawyers.  You really believe that they would sit still and let Trump lie about the phone call at this point?  They felt strong enough to come forward but are now going to be silent?  The call transcript has been out there for a while now.  It is incomprehensible to me that if it was a watered down version of the call that the whistle blowers or the people they talked to would not have come forward to dispute it.  It would bolster their case tremendously.

their case doesn't need bolstering.  and we haven't heard from the whistleblowers....at all.  that's the whole point.  it's part of the ongoing investigation and their identities are being protected by attorneys who deal with whistleblowers for a living.

for all we know, these were loyal, hard-working, non-partisan people who just had it building inside of them, and the ukraine call was just a bridge too far.  no reason to go spilling to the press about trump's account of "a bad summary" when it turns out there might be a "worse summary" living somewhere else.

i can't tell if you think the issue of whether there's a "second, separate, more accurate account of the call" is important, or if you're just trying to be right.  i think there's a lot of ambiguity in all of this.  the reason that nobody is focused on that is because it doesn't matter.

the whistleblower did his research, he spoke to a lot of people, then he filed his report.  the report went to a trump appointee who deemed it legit and urgent, and passed it along.  nothing else really matters at this point.

[henrygandorf 29192]

2 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

It's already been effective, even having been exposed as a scam. People talking about it leads people to believe there is something there. 40% of Democrats now think we need to have a conversation about Biden and Ukraine. A plurality of American's believe Biden pressured Ukraine. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/01/ukraine-story-appears-be-hurting-trump-possibly-biden-too/

That 45-36 split on whether Trump at least applied pressure on Zelensky is actually very similar to the split on whether Biden applied pressure on Ukraine to stop investigating his son — 42 percent to 37 percent. A plurality of Americans say it is “probably” true that Biden “put pressure on Ukrainian officials to get them not to investigate his son’s business dealings there.”

uh, yeah, that's trump's playbook.  or, play-greeting-card.  you open it, and in there is a list:

1. figure out who i'm running against, and spend all my time and energy getting that person's disapproval rating as high as mine.

end of list.

funny thing, is that he spent months/years assuming it was biden, and he'll be the reason warren wins.

[Gatorubet 30246]

Again, I am not saying it is not sleazy or potentially impeachable, I am saying I dont think it technically broke election law.

You choose to ignore the fact that linking one (investigate Biden) to the other (fund military aid to Ukraine) was of great benefit to Trump.

It is EXACTLY the same thing as saying to Trump - the Ford Dealer - asking for an investigation on the manufacturers of Chevy, Dodge and GMC trucks.....’cause he heard they were involved in corruption.

Nobody gives a shit about his POTUS status or the fact he claims a legit excuse for his illegal ass-hattery. That is clearly a ham-handed lie to enrich himself.

Anyone but a moron can see that his true motivation is to help his Ford dealership. Anyone but a moron can see that his true motivation is to help his 2020 election chances.

They are both improper actions made to benefit himself personally, and an abuse of office. Election law is violated when he receives a thing of value from the foreign actor. A Biden hit is a thing of value.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RomaVicta 29931]

On 10/16/2019 at 3:35 PM, sheeeit said:

Really?  There is a procedure in place for stenographers to record presidential phone calls.  That transcript is what was released.  It wasn't "paraphrased" it was dictation taken in real time.  

 

On 10/16/2019 at 3:38 PM, Brisketexan said:

I negged you because you lied.  And not even a good one.  

Here, FROM THE FUCKING DOCUMENT ITSELF:

It is NOT an exact, word-for-word transcription by a stenographer.  That is a specific thing.  This is not that thing.  So, fuck off, you fucking lying sack of shit.

I negged you, too. Obvious lie that Brisket documents and then closes with an appropriate valediction.

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

1 hour ago, Bama Chick said:

 

The drool iis nice touch.

[Dahobbs 17625]

30 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

Anyone but a moron . . .

Well yeah, but you're talking to Sheeeit.

[RomaVicta 29931]

5 hours ago, Eastwood said:

I'm calling it now: if the Senate actually votes to convict, the remaining Trump supporters will liken it to the assassination of Julius Caesar.

The assassination of Orange Julius

[HenryJames 66125]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

It has to be exhausting for Congressional Republicans to maintain sanity and keep their conspiracy theories straight.  They’ve been at this for several years now going back to Benghazi. 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

23 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

It has to be exhausting for Congressional Republicans to maintain sanity and keep their conspiracy theories straight.  They’ve been at this for several years now going back to Benghazi. 

I kinda think it's the other way around. The more insane they become, the more they are able to cook up crackpot shitpost ideas.

[Prepuce of Doom 21080]

11 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

Nobody watched Apocalypse Now Redux.

Bonus Playmate titties. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Prepuce of Doom

[DigglerontheHoof 21202]

8 hours ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

I kinda think it's the other way around. The more insane they become, the more they are able to cook up crackpot shitpost ideas.

And they seem to work.  I've never seen anything like it.  It's like bat-shit crazy is the norm. 

[cactusflinthead 27601]

17 hours ago, sheeeit said:

Whole lotta BS

Wall of text does not make your argument stronger. It mostly irritates the reader. This is a shitpost and you earned the negs.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Nunes has that talking point memorized so it is the one he is going to stick with. Kind of like the tan suit obsession. Which by the way, somehow I missed the whole tan suit thing the first time around and I had no idea people went off on Obama about it. Was his fly down? No? Then for pete's sake, leave it alone. It's clothes. Have you seen the rig Briscoe Cain wears when he's playing cowboy? This is from his addressing Maguire at the whistleblower meeting for HIC:

Quote

In short, what we have with this story line is another Steele dossier. I'll note here that in the Democrats' mania to overturn the 2016 elections, everything they touch gets hopelessly politicized. With the Russia hoax, it was our intelligence agencies, which were turned into a political weapon to attack the President.

That was a bit rich, coming from someone who pretty much attacks everyone who disagrees with him. I won't go on, but the entire exchange was illuminating.

[Ted Lange 16110]

 

 

[Post Oak 20246]

6 minutes ago, Ted Lange said:

 

 

You just now believe he should be impeached?

Fuck outta here john.  You are braver than Mitt.  Congrats you concerned coward.

 

[Mapache 1117]

 

[CowboyFred 1151]

On 10/17/2019 at 1:13 PM, sheeeit said:

I would love for one of you to actually say that you truly think a second more complete copy of the transcript exists.  Lets go on record.  

Don't know if anybody responded to this but I will go on record saying that I truly believe there is a second un-edited copy of the phone call.  Just judging by the acts of this administration, the way certain punctuation is used in the transcript (use of ellipsis) and the overall deviation from usual practices of transcript release.  The administration claims the use of ellipsis is for any point in the conversation that it became inaudible, but anybody who has experience with any sort of transcript of a phone call, hearing, deposition knows that it is common practice to use "inaudible" because the use of an ellipsis is most commonly used when removing text because it is superfluous to include it or because it should not be released (like a sealed indictment).  

There are just too many deviations from standard practice and that coupled with the prior acts of this administration lead me to believe that the possibility of a "more complete" copy of the transcript existing.  Just fishy all around.

Also, to be clear, I am not talking about anything to do with executive privilege or whatever else you're arguing with others about.  I am only responding to your request for someone else to go on record with this belief of another more complete transcript. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

I thought it was reported from the beginning that the actual transcript of the Ukraine call and numerous others were in a code-level secure place. Did I get that wrong

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

I just can’t imagine how something can be more incriminating than what they released.  

[texastough 1129]

8 minutes ago, GW Hayduke said:

I thought it was reported from the beginning that the actual transcript of the Ukraine call and numerous others were in a code-level secure place. Did I get that wrong

Yes, a server that’s supposed to be only used for top secret matters of national security 

[Lurch 5931]

You did (I believe). The official memorandum was put on the secure server when it normally would not have been.

It was likely captured by a dictation machine and then edited (non nefarious) by a stenographer. What happened between their edits and storage is unknown.

My guess is that a recording exists somewhere within the IC. Ukraine almost certainly has a recording as well.

I doubt anything significant was removed. What we saw was damning already.

[Guest Lobo]

as irony would have it, the full transcript with audio and the NSA's best guess as conversational syntax is sitting on a CPU tower at a defunct compUSA in Tully, NY near Hillary's'

[TwiceHorn 31497]

1 hour ago, CowboyFred said:

Don't know if anybody responded to this but I will go on record saying that I truly believe there is a second un-edited copy of the phone call.  Just judging by the acts of this administration, the way certain punctuation is used in the transcript (use of ellipsis) and the overall deviation from usual practices of transcript release.  The administration claims the use of ellipsis is for any point in the conversation that it became inaudible, but anybody who has experience with any sort of transcript of a phone call, hearing, deposition knows that it is common practice to use "inaudible" because the use of an ellipsis is most commonly used when removing text because it is superfluous to include it or because it should not be released (like a sealed indictment).  

There are just too many deviations from standard practice and that coupled with the prior acts of this administration lead me to believe that the possibility of a "more complete" copy of the transcript existing.  Just fishy all around.

Also, to be clear, I am not talking about anything to do with executive privilege or whatever else you're arguing with others about.  I am only responding to your request for someone else to go on record with this belief of another more complete transcript. 

Yep, I find it difficult to believe that they bother eavesdropping on the call in an official capacity without creating both (or at least one of) a recording and a transcript of that recording.

That they are stored on a very secure server is initially not nefarious at all.  

And, none of this addresses whether any such recording or transcript has been altered or deleted by the Administration.

Edited October 18, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

5 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, I find it difficult to believe that they bother eavesdropping on the call in an official capacity without creating both (or at least one of) a recording and a transcript of that recording.

That they are stored on a very secure server is initially not nefarious at all.  

And, none of this addresses whether any such recording or transcript has been altered or deleted by the Administration.

What is awesome is the other side of these phone calls most certainly has recordings and transcripts which can be used as blackmail material to do things like coercing you to pulling troops out of Syria. 

So much winning.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[SuingToGetAMessageBoard? 3861]

You’re talking about Ukraine. 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

1 minute ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

You’re talking about Ukraine. 

Not just Ukraine.  Any conversation they wanted to keep secret in the safe. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by Hugo Stiglitz

[henrygandorf 29192]

i'm feeling needy today.  let's get trump on the phone.

you can insert any country you want there.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

53 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, I find it difficult to believe that they bother eavesdropping on the call in an official capacity without creating both (or at least one of) a recording and a transcript of that recording.

That they are stored on a very secure server is initially not nefarious at all.  

And, none of this addresses whether any such recording or transcript has been altered or deleted by the Administration.

I know you are a lawyer, but you need to stop giving these criminals the benefit of the doubt every time. They've long ago lost any assumptions that they are being truthful and forthcoming. If Trump is talking, he is lying and it's the same for his entire administration and the bulk of the GOP. 

Trump is abusing his power and selling American interests out for personal and business reasons. There are also transcripts of conversations with Putin and MBS hidden in that codeword sensitive server. Wouldn't surprise me if there are some Erdogan conversations as well. 

It's nefarious as fuck. The evidence is being hidden by his co-conspirators in a codeword sensitive system rather than being handled in the normal way to prevent discovery of the President's crimes. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

I'm a fan of Walter Shaub. He pretty much gives a nice example in his twitter page of going through Trump's latest crime. Just add it to the list, make a commercial for television, something.

 

[HOOK'EMHOOAH 1610]

3 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yep, I find it difficult to believe that they bother eavesdropping on the call in an official capacity without creating both (or at least one of) a recording and a transcript of that recording.

That they are stored on a very secure server is initially not nefarious at all.  

And, none of this addresses whether any such recording or transcript has been altered or deleted by the Administration.

One possible explanation as to why the whistleblowers might not have done something like that is it's clear they work in a secure environment. The rules and regulations governing working in such an environment dictate that any device that could possibly be used to record anything that isn't first cleared to be in said environment is prohibited. That wouldn't explain not transcribing the phone call, but it would possibly be increasingly difficult with other people around.

[TwiceHorn 31497]

2 hours ago, suddenly shaggy said:

I know you are a lawyer, but you need to stop giving these criminals the benefit of the doubt every time. They've long ago lost any assumptions that they are being truthful and forthcoming. If Trump is talking, he is lying and it's the same for his entire administration and the bulk of the GOP. 

Trump is abusing his power and selling American interests out for personal and business reasons. There are also transcripts of conversations with Putin and MBS hidden in that codeword sensitive server. Wouldn't surprise me if there are some Erdogan conversations as well. 

It's nefarious as fuck. The evidence is being hidden by his co-conspirators in a codeword sensitive system rather than being handled in the normal way to prevent discovery of the President's crimes. 

I'm not giving anyone any benefit of any doubt.Do you think state conversations are or should be stored on an insecure server?  The internet perhaps?  What IS THE NORMAL WAY?  No one is talking about that.

Now, maybe you can talk about how no one but Trump loyalists or family members have access to that server.  But no one is doing that. 

I'm talking through a) the likely existence of both or either a recording or a transcript and b) its likely storage on a fairly secure server in response to questions about same.  That's not defending anything.  

 I don't give a fuck if only copy of the transcript is printed out and sitting in someone's desk drawer or a file cabinet, or that the recording is on an 8-track tape.  What the fuck difference does it make where it's stored?  It's not going to be public in any event.  

Bitch about non-disclosure if you want to, that's fine. No one is saying if it were handled "in the normal way" the White House press corps or Bob Mueller or Preet Bharara would already have a copy.  

[atomheartbevo 89732]

1 hour ago, HOOK'EMHOOAH said:

One possible explanation as to why the whistleblowers might not have done something like that is it's clear they work in a secure environment. The rules and regulations governing working in such an environment dictate that any device that could possibly be used to record anything that isn't first cleared to be in said environment is prohibited. That wouldn't explain not transcribing the phone call, but it would possibly be increasingly difficult with other people around.

I’m willing to bet that Donnie and his favorites don’t hand over their phones.  

 

[Biff Tannen 45691]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not giving anyone any benefit of any doubt.Do you think state conversations are or should be stored on an insecure server?  The internet perhaps?  What IS THE NORMAL WAY?  No one is talking about that.

Now, maybe you can talk about how no one but Trump loyalists or family members have access to that server.  But no one is doing that. 

I'm talking through a) the likely existence of both or either a recording or a transcript and b) its likely storage on a fairly secure server in response to questions about same.  That's not defending anything.  

 I don't give a fuck if only copy of the transcript is printed out and sitting in someone's desk drawer or a file cabinet, or that the recording is on an 8-track tape.  What the fuck difference does it make where it's stored?  It's not going to be public in any event.  

Bitch about non-disclosure if you want to, that's fine. No one is saying if it were handled "in the normal way" the White House press corps or Bob Mueller or Preet Bharara would already have a copy.  

In my limited understanding, the use of the code word server is generally reserved for extraordinary circumstances where the contents of the conversations are extremely sensitive to national security. This server is not used for regular conversations between the president and other foreign leaders. “Code Word” designation is like the top level of top secret. Beyond top secret. 
 

Moron presidents having moron conversations don’t usually qualify. They are abusing the government classification system to cover up obvious criminal activity. This isn’t hard. They are not good criminals. 

[TwiceHorn 31497]

29 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not giving anyone any benefit of any doubt.Do you think state conversations are or should be stored on an insecure server?  The internet perhaps?  What IS THE NORMAL WAY?  No one is talking about that.

Now, maybe you can talk about how no one but Trump loyalists or family members have access to that server.  But no one is doing that. 

I'm talking through a) the likely existence of both or either a recording or a transcript and b) its likely storage on a fairly secure server in response to questions about same.  That's not defending anything.  

 I don't give a fuck if only copy of the transcript is printed out and sitting in someone's desk drawer or a file cabinet, or that the recording is on an 8-track tape.  What the fuck difference does it make where it's stored?  It's not going to be public in any event.  

Bitch about non-disclosure if you want to, that's fine. No one is saying if it were handled "in the normal way" the White House press corps or Bob Mueller or Preet Bharara would already have a copy.  

Clarifying.  It seems to me that where exactly it's stored, short of the extremely unlikely publicly accessible location, it's going to take legal action to get Trumpco to cough it up.  Thus, to me, its storage location is not material.

And, if Trumpco refuses to cough up a complete transcript, then any fact finder should be entitled to construe the "memorandum" against him.

[TwiceHorn 31497]

1 minute ago, Biff Tannen said:

In my limited understanding, the use of the code word server is generally reserved for extraordinary circumstances where the contents of the conversations are extremely sensitive to national security. This server is not used for regular conversations between the president and other foreign leaders. “Code Word” designation is like the top level of top secret. Beyond top secret. 
 

Moron presidents having moron conversations don’t usually qualify. They are abusing the government classification system to cover up obvious criminal activity. This isn’t hard. They are not good criminals. 

See my previous post.  Yeah, it's a clumsy way to try to bury it.

[suddenly shaggy 929]

13 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'm not giving anyone any benefit of any doubt.Do you think state conversations are or should be stored on an insecure server?  The internet perhaps?  What IS THE NORMAL WAY?  No one is talking about that.

You, like many of our right-wing posters, have a curious habit of a near perfect memory for convenient evidence and simultaneous ability to be unaware of basic, but inconvenient, evidence. 

You must have missed nearly every article written about the whistleblower's allegations and almost all of our discussion. It's literally one of the biggest abuses of power alleged in the whistleblower complaint. I guess you didn't read the coverage, or the whistleblower complaint, or participate on here while it was discussed and you must have inexplicably missed one of the central points of the allegations. 

It was also widely discussed when Trump released the memorandum you, like the rest of the GOP, continues to disingenuously try to call a "transcript". I guess you missed all of that too.

The normal way is that these memoranda are prepared and circulated to relevant staff, ambassadors, agencies etc. The abnormal way is that someone in the Trump administration immediately intervened in the aftermath of these calls, illegitimately classified the documents and hid them in a codeword-level server to prevent disclosure of the President's crimes. This, according to literally every reputable article yet published on the matter, is different from how these are normally handled and I should hope the fuck so.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

The document additionally carries classification markings that Situation Room staffers do not normally add when they create a word-for-word transcript, current and former officials said.

“I thought to myself, ‘This didn’t go through the normal process,’ ” said one former government official who was among several who handled these records and found the document released by the White House curious.

The whistleblower said in his complaint that multiple U.S. officials had alerted him that “senior White House officials had intervened to ‘lock down’ all records of the phone call, especially the official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced — as is customary — by the White House Situation Room. This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call.”

 

[TwiceHorn 31497]

24 minutes ago, suddenly shaggy said:

You, like many of our right-wing posters, have a curious habit of a near perfect memory for convenient evidence and simultaneous ability to be unaware of basic, but inconvenient, evidence. 

You must have missed nearly every article written about the whistleblower's allegations and almost all of our discussion. It's literally one of the biggest abuses of power alleged in the whistleblower complaint. I guess you didn't read the coverage, or the whistleblower complaint, or participate on here while it was discussed and you must have inexplicably missed one of the central points of the allegations. 

It was also widely discussed when Trump released the memorandum you, like the rest of the GOP, continues to disingenuously try to call a "transcript". I guess you missed all of that too.

The normal way is that these memoranda are prepared and circulated to relevant staff, ambassadors, agencies etc. The abnormal way is that someone in the Trump administration immediately intervened in the aftermath of these calls, illegitimately classified the documents and hid them in a codeword-level server to prevent disclosure of the President's crimes. This, according to literally every reputable article yet published on the matter, is different from how these are normally handled and I should hope the fuck so.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/10/03/odd-markings-ellipses-fuel-doubts-about-rough-transcript-trumps-ukraine-call/

 

 

I am not a member of the GOP and have not been since prior to 2016.  I probably did vote for an odd republican in the last state election.

I am aware of the allegations that it was stored somewhere different than usual.  I maintain that it's not terribly material.

I will no longer engage with you because you have a habit of reading into my posts things that are not there because you think you know what my politics are.

Good day.

 

Edited October 19, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Pasken 1309]

8 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I am aware of the allegations that it was stored somewhere different than usual.  I maintain that it's not terribly material.

I will no longer engage with you because you have a habit of reading into my posts things that are not there because you think you know what my politics are.

 

I don’t know what your politics are but that’s a pretty stupid statement given the server.

[TwiceHorn 31497]

4 minutes ago, Pasken said:

I don’t know what your politics are but that’s a pretty stupid statement given the server.

The server is not a given.  Is it beyond the reach of legal process?  If things were handled in the "normal way" is there any evidence that it would be public?  I suppose it might reduce the number of readers of any transcript.

The corruption, the election violation, and the abuse of power are evident on the face of the "memorandum."  We don't need anything else.  It's like quid pro quo.

Edited October 19, 2019 by TwiceHorn