Jump to content

impeachment inquiry hearings thread

henrygandorf

By henrygandorf
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

TexasEd
TexasEd

I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

Paul Wesley
Paul Wesley

I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

Tailgate
Tailgate

Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Irwin F Fletcher said:

Has Congress subpoened the actual call record? Or have they been slowly giving Trump more rope to hang himself before requesting the records of the call?

All indications are that Schiff/Pelosi are done with adding new drawn out court fights.  However, I suspect the actual complete transcript could be bad enough to sway public opinion even more, and at a minimum, make Senate GOP denialists blanche a little.  Trump got exposed as lying about the transcript today by a senior NSC staffer who wintnessed the call beginning to end.

just get those damned financials and tax returns.  If there's going to be a next level, that would be it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
CowboyFred

CowboyFred 1162

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Message Board User said:

Falsification of documents?

 

 

On 10/18/2019 at 5:01 PM, 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. 

heh...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
triplehorn

triplehorn 2664

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Captainant said:

The resolution puts a couple of big buzzsaws in motion for trump and friends:

(1) Dem leaders issued a statement indicating public hearings will be held by the Intelligence Committee. So D questioning will be led by their strongest questioner by far (former federal prosecutor Adam Schiff), while Rs will be led by a bananapants insane conspiracy theorist who sues fake cows and is personally implicated in the matter under inquiry.

(2) Hearings will begin with up to 90 minutes of questioning from professional legal counsel, not politicians. To get an idea of how significant this is, look no further than Barry Berke's questioning of Corey Lewandowski last month regarding his role in the Mueller Report. Lewandowski had ensured the hearing was a clown show up to that point, but in just a short interview, Berke methodically extracted admissions from Lewandowski of multiple public lies, that he pled the fifth to Mueller to avoid testifying, that he was offered a bribe by the White House to talk to Sessions about unrecusing, and tried to meet privately with Sessions so there would be no record. Incidentally, Berke was just seen taking the elevator down to the Intelligence Committee SCIF.

Buckle up, buckaroos. It's gonna be an unproductive morning whenever there's a hearing on

I'm still in awe of how thoroughly Barry Berke tore up Lewandowski in full on defiant asshole mode.

Berke sighting today:

 

(took me a bit find the visible part of Nadler)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
suddenly shaggy

suddenly shaggy 929

Posted
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

I thought y’all were wrong pressing that issue.  Pretty cool. 

Never trust anything from the Trump administration. If the sanitized version they were willing to release was so incriminating, the untold part of it was even worse. 

The entire right wing was also fixated on calling it a 'transcript', even though it clearly says at the bottom that it isn't. They were setting the messaging really hard. That was another tell. 

Edited by suddenly shaggy
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dnaguy

Dnaguy 12628

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, triplehorn said:

I'm still in awe of how thoroughly Barry Berke tore up Lewandowski in full on defiant asshole mode.

Berke sighting today:

 

(took me a bit find the visible part of Nadler)

 

You sir, great Nadar. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest Lobo

Guest Lobo

Posted
Posted

i want a set of those chairs and I want them now.  It’s perfect that this Ukrainian guy’s pad looks like how Trump would decorate his own Russian properties.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Horn Dog

Horn Dog 10158

Posted
Posted
On 10/16/2019 at 7:46 PM, sheeeit said:

A lot to unpack here.  You really do not understand what you are talking about.

The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. "  

The document that was released by the WH was that exact document.  Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript.  There is no other document.  The one released is the official situation room document.  The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server.  The exact one the whistle blower was referring to.

You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript.  There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists.  Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call.  You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript.  No one who heard the call has questioned this.  No one.  You are just wrong.  (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word)

As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense.  The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation.  Nothing was omitted.  

If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems.  Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.  

Bump

  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CowboyFred

CowboyFred 1162

Posted
Posted
On 10/16/2019 at 6:46 PM, sheeeit said:

A lot to unpack here.  You really do not understand what you are talking about.

The whistle blower referred to the " official word-for-word transcript of the call that was produced-as is customary-by the White House Situation Room. "  

The document that was released by the WH was that exact document.  Not a summary of the transcript, the same transcript.  There is no other document.  The one released is the official situation room document.  The exact document that was classified and placed on the secure server.  The exact one the whistle blower was referring to.

You are clearly trying to imply that there exists another transcript.  There is zero evidence anywhere that another document exists.  Listen carefully- dozens of people listened to the call, including the very same people that told the whistle blower about the call.  You want us to believe that the WH released a doctored or abbreviated or something similar transcript to the public, and told the public it was the official situation room transcript, and that not one of the dozen people who heard the call- again including the ones that informed the whistle blower about how bad it was- have claimed that it was not the whole transcript.  No one who heard the call has questioned this.  No one.  You are just wrong.  (note- you need to tell the other lawyers hammering me on my word choice that the whistle blower is a "lying, fucking liar" for saying that the situation room transcript is word for word)

As for the ellipses, once again you are just clinging to speculative nonsense.  The former director of the same situation room for Obama said that the ellipses represented times where the person speaking paused in the course of the conversation.  Nothing was omitted.  

If you could just think, you wouldnt have these problems.  Just ask yourself if you truly believe that the dozen or so people that listened to the call and decided to take it to the IG and file an official report and communicate with the intelligence committee would just stand by and not hammer the WH if the transcript that was released was not the whole thing.  

giphy.gif

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mrs Whiggins

Mrs Whiggins 13050

Posted
Posted

Here are the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

Republicans

Chairman James Risch (ID), Marco Rubio (FL), Ron Johnson (WI), Cory Gardner (CO), Mitt Romney (UT), Lindsey Graham (SC), Johnny Isakson (GA), John Barrasso (WY) Rob Portman (OH), Rand Paul (KY), Todd Young (IN), Ted Cruz (TX)

Democrats

Ranking member Bob Menendez (NJ), Ben Cardin (MD), Jeanne Shaheen (NH), Christopher Coons (DE), Tom Udall (NM), Chris Murphy (CT), Tim Kaine (VA), Edward Markey (MA), Jeff Merkley (OR), Cory Booker (NJ)

 

Veritable who's who of deniers, liars, and suck ups on the GOp side with Romney perhaps being wishy washy. I haven't watched the hearing yet, it's on/taped but am looking forward to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Bump

yeah, there were 2-3 different times a group of us posted about the process of transcribing these calls.  we were all over it even when some reporters were still calling it a "transcript".

weird it took this long for this shit to come out and become a thing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
atomheartbevo

atomheartbevo 90642

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

This could go in four different threads...John Sullivan, Trump's nominee,  testifies before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during his confirmation as Russian ambassador. He is currently deputy SofS.

 

It's amazing how many of Trump's nominees/hires are not exactly protecting Trump and his associates.  Almost as if they are concerned about being caught up in something legally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
scottsins

scottsins 2047

Posted
Posted
Griffen recounts Trump saying on October 2: "This is an exact word-for-word transcript of the conversation, taken by very talented stenographers."
so ready for the absurdly guilty lying to end


Just saw that trump quote from 10/2. He actually said “word for word, comma for comma, by people that do this for a living”.


I think he knows they’re weren’t stenographers listening in, but just gives no shits about shading everything and lying through his teeth...and that no one will stop supporting him or care about his “just words and stuff”.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
horn4life

horn4life 3838

Posted
Posted

Here's what I want to hear when Pompeo is sitting in front of the hearing.  

"Sir, let me read something to you." 

"And so whatever you report about them, you say, “the Houthis said,” you should say, “the well-known, frequently lying Houthis have said the following.” This is important, because you ought not report them as if these are truth-tellers,"

"Mr. Pompeo do you recognize these words?  Can you tell the committee who said these words? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Five

Red Five 41737

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, scottsins said:

 


Just saw that trump quote from 10/2. He actually said “word for word, comma for comma, by people that do this for a living”.


I think he knows they’re weren’t stenographers listening in, but just gives no shits about shading everything and lying through his teeth...and that no one will stop supporting him or care about his “just words and stuff”.

 

I winced every time someone referred to that as a "transcript". Everyone who did should now apologize. I think "inaccurate partial synopsis" is a better description. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
henrygandorf

henrygandorf 29225

Posted
  • Author
Posted

after spending years working for a boss who has a similar npd way about him, it's amazing the similarities when it comes to lies and exaggerations.  i saw with my own eyes how events transpired, and was there minutes later, when he first told someone else about it, and it wasn't that far off-base, maybe shaded a little to make himself look or feel better.

then the 2nd or 3rd time he'd tell it, he'd leave out certain details, or round up about what might be a better version of how he came off in the story.  eventually, he would come up with a complete fabrication that was his favorite, and one that he thought sounded best.

then it wasn't ever about remembering the actual incident, it was about remembering the best possible version that he had told, and stiffening the details of that version to make it sound more accurate.  eventually, he couldn't tell the difference anymore.  

you can see when trump tries out his material, eventually, he finds a version he likes the most that he and his minions can run with.  then he stiffens it to the point where it doesn't even match something he said days earlier.  but he doesn't remember that, nor does he care.  and neither does his 40%.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites
BradInATX

BradInATX 9208

Posted
Posted (edited)

I once co-founded a business with someone exactly the same. The scariest part is how they eventually get so wound up in the snowball of the fabrication that it becomes reality to them. Like truly reality, to where they can probably visualize the moment in their head. You know Trump actually believes the "sir" 70% 401k story to be true at this point. That whole story where some guy probably came up to him and said "you helped my 401k" then it became "sir, you're so great, my 401k is up 30%", then 45%, and now it's up to 70. That happened almost weekly with this guy.

The crazy part is he'd tell those lies to people like me or other people high up in the company who could easily debunk those stories. People who were there for what really happened, or knew objectively that the falsehoods were false. Then he'd turn around and tell those same stories to those who knew them to be false. It'd be like Pete Carroll walking up to Matt Leinart and telling him they beat Texas in the Rose Bowl. It was astonishing. It's true mental illness.

I had to leave the company because it got so bad that I was worried that the fantasies that had become reality were going to get us into serious legal trouble. They did, after I left. He almost went to jail and the company is on its last legs.

Edited by BradInATX
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...