Over and over again and expecting different results

CNN: Top Democrats privately concede major shift in public opinion on impeachment is unlikely.

In a private meeting this week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her top lieutenants were skeptical about the prospects of a dramatic shift in opinion even as public impeachment hearings began this week, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. The upshot, the sources said: Democrats need to move forward with impeachment proceedings even if the politics are murky, noting that even during Richard Nixon’s presidency most of the public was divided until soon before he was forced to resign.

To recap: the impeachment hoax was designed to cover up the crimes of the Biden family … which came to prominent public attention during the Ukraine hoax … which was conceived to cover up the Russia hoax … which was orchestrated to cover up the illegal surveillance of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign.

This entry was posted in American politics, Fake News. Bookmark the permalink.

98 Responses to Over and over again and expecting different results

  1. Knuckle Dragger

    Excellent recap, and perfectly put.

    Flogs.

  2. mh

    Dr Fred Lenin summed it up nicely on the Open thread

    Dr Fred Lenin
    #3213492, posted on November 16, 2019 at 5:02 pm
    I am surprised the owners of the US decromats allowing this damaging fiasco to continue , its devaluing the party they spent so much money buying , they are handing over control of their asset ( the decromat party) to the fools of career polticians they own . Bit of a slip up there schwartzie (soros) ,you are losing it ,penalty for living so long .
    These decromats are just so up themselves they dont realise they are committing electoral suicide just keep feeding them the nooses and they will use them on themselves , a common trait of left wing politicians .
    Just waiting for comrade andrews mob to self destruct ,alp governments do it all the time in Victoria ,its a pleasure to watch it happen

  3. stackja

    mh – ALP in Victoria split in 1950s.
    Then came Cain/Kirner.
    Victorian voters keep electing ALP expecting a different outcome.

  4. stackja

    USA voters elected FDR then elected JFK, Bill Clinton, BO. Dems have always been leftists. USA voters keep electing leftists expecting a different result.

  5. Tom

    The most frustrating thing about watching the self-destruction of the Democratic Party, apart from the unwitting commitment to it by 90% of the former news media (which now behaves like the propaganda branch of the DNC), is that, because another year has to go by before it is resolved at an election, it feels like it is happening in slow motion and that the people inside the party who are conducting this farce are the only ones who can’t see it happening.

    The American political landscape is going to look weird after the smashing administered by voters next November.

  6. Iampeter

    No mentions of gay frogs and lizard people? Come on CL, you can do better than this.

    Politics!

  7. And on the other side of the world our media is in full support of the ‘Dimocrats’. I haven’t seen one media statement that in anyway questions what the Dimocrats are doing and its validity. They simply mimic what comes from CNN etc and NYT etc.

    I hadn’t quite realised how far down the Leftist front our media has gone. It’s not just Their ABC and The Rage, but all of them now, not an independent voice amongst any of them.

  8. struth

    You do have Outsiders on sky but that’s about it.
    Looking at my dealings with Australian media I would say that they are much worse than American media.

  9. struth

    To say why I believe it to be the case, the American MSM have leftist bosses.
    The Australian media are ALL leftists due to the complete brainwashing they get in Uni from the radical communist left that completely control journalism courses.

  10. mh

    Iampeter’s posts are improving.

    They are getting shorter.

  11. Roger

    And yet, if you watched ABC’s Washington correspondent James Glenday’s report last night you’d think Trump was on the ropes.

    ABC TV news should be preceded by a political disclaimer.

    Yes, the Q&A Broadside is still up online.

    Over to you, Ita.

  12. Muddy

    Clinging Mist.
    I’ve written this previously, and I still believe it is a possibility: that the most authoritative core of the Demoncrats know they cannot compete with President Trump, and must simply wait out his term/s until it is ‘their turn’ again. This impeachment mess is simply ‘treading water.’

    To make this happen, they need to achieve two objectives: (1) Convince their constituency they are actually doing something to oppose President Trump, and (2) Minimise the danger of any Trump protege posing a substantial threat to the Demoncrat re-occupation of the political throne once the waiting period is over.

    (1). This is self-explanatory, so I will not elaborate other than to state that I believe the vast majority of Demoncrats probably believe what they are chanting, and believe they can achieve what they desire; those who have chosen the Clinging Mist option are a tiny percentage of the horde, but have the decision-making power. The latter are permitting the former to ‘have a go’ and pretending to support them, which is safer than doing nothing at all.
    (2). I call this a Clinging Mist strategy rather than ‘throwing mud,’ because after the initial few rounds, the smart ones realised that the mud they threw was not sticking. From a practical point of view, the next option is to coat a legacy with ambiguity, hence the mist that obscures, rather than blocks out completely. A Trump protege who is not as combative as their mentor, will find him/herself consistently required to prove or disprove accusations that cannot be clearly examined through the mist surrounding the Trump legacy.

    On the first read, the above probably sounds like mumbo-jumbo or conspiracy theory wackiness. Put yourself in the shoes of the top Demoncrat strategists, assume they have some intelligence (they got Obama elected after all), and ask yourself if it makes sense. In Afghanistan, it was claimed that once the major U.S. draw-down was publicly announced, the Taliban chose to husband their resources for fighting the weaker Afghanistani Government forces, rather than risk further losses against the might of the U.S. Surely this is practical in politics also?

  13. Andre Lewis

    Very true about the wall to wall anti Trump stance of the US media but what is the reason for a similar situation here? Watching a variety of the free to air channel news programs recently their reporting of the ongoing impeachment saga is solely about reporting testimony that supposedly damages Trump. The credibility or GOP questioning of witnesses like the sacked Ukraine ambassador is simply ignored just leaving viewers with an impression that Trump is done for.
    The ABC, SBS usual bias and now channel 9 is expected to take the left/green position given its ownership but channel 7 is getting just as bad!

  14. Roger

    Very true about the wall to wall anti Trump stance of the US media but what is the reason for a similar situation here?

    They were all indoctrinated at the same universities.

    Whatever happened to “Sapere aude!“?

  15. Walter Plinge

    CNN, eh. I guess people have seen this report on CNN:

    Airports around the world are reporting record revenues after introducing a long-awaited feature: the ability to turn off CNN on television sets in their terminals.

    For just one quarter, you can turn off CNN for a full fifteen minutes while you’re waiting for your flight, leaving you with the “far superior” experience of just staring at a blank screen.

    “At long last,” said one man waiting for his flight at LaGuardia as he dropped a few dollars’ worth of quarters into the “Turn CNN Off” slot. “Honestly, I might fly more now.” He’s not alone: airports expect a 426% uptick in traveling over the holidays as flyers no longer have to worry about having the droning words of CNN hosts pounded into their heads for hours on a layover.

    The feature has been one of the most-requested by travelers along with the dismantling of the TSA and pretzel bags with more than 3 pretzels in them.

    The money-making move has inspired moments of human compassion and unity as travelers lend each other money or leave quarters behind atop the television sets for future travelers to turn off CNN. One anonymous philanthropist at DFW prepaid for over a year of CNN-less travel throughout the terminal.

    “It’s great to see what humanity can accomplish when we unite,” said one man at LAX as he rummaged through his pockets to lend a quarter to a woman who wanted to turn off the CNN screen near her. “Here you go, miss. Enjoy your flight!”

    CNN is protesting the move, saying it has cut their viewing audience in half, leaving them with just one.

  16. FelixKruell

    Roger:

    And yet, if you watched ABC’s Washington correspondent James Glenday’s report last night you’d think Trump was on the ropes.

    A pretty fair assessment. You can always tell by the increase in frequency and batshit craziness of Trumps tweets.

    So far pretty much all of the testimony is supporting the original accusation – Trump sought a quid pro quo of Ukraine announcing they were investigating Biden and friends if Ukraine wanted the US’s continued support (and military aid). We haven’t really seen any testimony casting serious doubt on this. Maybe it’s still coming, but I suspect unlikely given those who could provide it have been barred from testifying by the White House.

  17. You can always tell by the increase in frequency and batshit craziness of Trumps tweets.

    And thus Trumps keeps working his magic. It drives the Left batshit crazy and irrational, which is exactly what Trump is after.

  18. Roger

    FelixKruell
    #3213995, posted on November 17, 2019 at 11:54 am

    On the contrary, so far we’ve seen lots of smoke, but no fire.

  19. Dr Fred Lenin

    Trumps tweets ,we cant have someone tweeting the truth about things ,you would never get a career polliemuppet doing that , being truthfull leaves you open to exposure ,something no career politician can afford ,many of them are from the law trade and we all know how they abhor the truth , just look at the Pell fit up .

  20. FelixKruell

    Bemused:

    And thus Trumps keeps working his magic. It drives the Left batshit crazy and irrational, which is exactly what Trump is after.

    Sure, that’s a possibility. That he’s a cunning and disciplined player, who uses tweets as a strategic weapon against his enemies.

    That, or he’s an undisciplined man-child who can’t control his emotions or his actions, and tweets whatever he feels like regardless of the consequences (some of which are conveniently to drive the left bat shit crazy).

    One of the two…

  21. FelixKruell

    Roger:

    On the contrary, so far we’ve seen lots of smoke, but no fire.

    Really?

    If by fire you mean a clear criminal act that has historically warranted impeachment – then sure.

    But if you by fire mean what I said – withholding government aid to Ukraine in return for a Bidem investigation, I think that fire has been well established now.

  22. Sure, that’s a possibility.

    Given that the Democrats are running around batshit crazy and irrational, draw your own conclusions.

  23. FelixKruell

    Bemused:

    Both possibilities lead to that outcome. Therefore that outcome doesn’t let us draw any conclusions…

  24. Dr Fred Lenin

    The headline is the socialist mantra ,just because socialism didnt work in Hitlers Germany ,Stalins Russia ,Maos China the Kims North Kprea< Hs Vietnam ,PolPots Cambodia ,Castros Cuba, Mugabes Zimbabwe ,Maduros Venezuala ,doesnt meanthe same thing wont work in a modern civilised country .

  25. struth

    A pretty fair assessment. You can always tell by the increase in frequency and batshit craziness of Trumps tweets.

    So far pretty much all of the testimony is supporting the original accusation – Trump sought a quid pro quo of Ukraine announcing they were investigating Biden and friends if Ukraine wanted the US’s continued support (and military aid). We haven’t really seen any testimony casting serious doubt on this. Maybe it’s still coming, but I suspect unlikely given those who could provide it have been barred from testifying by the White House.

    Here we are just talking about the brainwashing the left wing MSM practice and in comes the brainwashed.
    BIDEN threatened to withhold aid when he was vice President to Oh Bummer, a billion to Ukraine if they didn’t sack the guy investigating the Power company and his son.
    He has been filmed bragging about it.
    There is a bilateral agreement between the States and the Ukraine to work together on these issues.
    President Trump releases transcript of the actual phone call between the Ukrainian President and himself which clears him of these false allegations.
    There was no Quid Pro Quo at all, except for Biden’s which was more like criminal threats to interfere with a criminal investigation into corruption on the part of Biden, which involves Biden.

    Just thought I’d tell you the facts because you must be watching the ABC, you seem that fucking confused.

  26. mh

    I think that fire has been well established now.

    A ring of fire, Felix?

  27. Entropy

    Thanks Struth, that was my understanding too, but Felix had me thinking I must have missed something. Instead the dickhead was just sprouting DNC talking points.

  28. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Haven’t followed any of the testimony over the past week then? No mainstream media needed. Straight from the witnesses mouths. A clear quid pro quo that all parties knew about.

    Oh and Biden may well be guilty of something similar. Funnily enough, that doesn’t absolve Trump.

  29. struth

    Haven’t followed any of the testimony over the past week then? No mainstream media needed. Straight from the witnesses mouths. A clear quid pro quo that all parties knew about

    Followed near all of it.
    Watched the actual questioning on youtube etc.
    Apparently you believe what the MSM tell you because I also follow their lies and you are breathlessly mouthing their exact lies.

  30. struth

    The DNC have actually now stated that hearsay is better proof than proof, as they’ve fucked this up so much.
    Did you see that part Felix?

  31. struth

    I’d get you to quote the part that “gets” Trump, straight from the horses mouth so to speak, or what specifically you think , or the Demoncrats think he did wrong, and where, but just go out and get better educated.
    MSM is for the lazy of mind.
    Many nice people are just gullible and still get suckered by the MSM.

  32. Squirrel

    Fairly sure Our ABC has reported that there is very solid (majority) public support for impeachment – someone should tell Nancy and put her mind at ease…….

  33. FelixKruell

    From Sondlands revised statement:

    Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.
    6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself.

    Sounds awfully like a quid pro quo to me, communicated to the Ukrainians. His earlier testimony, plus those of others, make it even clearer.

  34. struth

    Sounds awfully like a quid pro quo to me, communicated to the Ukrainians. His earlier testimony, plus those of others, make it even clearer.

    Hearsay, unprovable nonsense, and nothing at all to do with Trump.

  35. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    Hearsay

    No, it’s first person testimony. By the person who did the talking.

  36. JC

    Sounds awfully like a quid pro quo to me, communicated to the Ukrainians. His earlier testimony, plus those of others, make it even clearer.

    There’s nothing extraordinary about this you clown. By the same token Trump should be impeached for attempting to coerce the North K with trade etc if they stopped developing nukes. The Kenyan too, should have been impeached for offering deals to the Iranians. Part of the deal was a straight out cash settlement sent by plane.

    You granite head.

  37. FelixKruell

    JC:

    There’s nothing extraordinary about this you clown

    So you now admit there was a quid pro quo, but don’t think there’s anything unusual or wrong about it? Just want to be clear here…

  38. Tim Neilson

    The real point about Felix’s revelations is that they prove conclusively that Trump has done nothing wrong.

    Even if there was a quid pro quo, the worst criticism that can be made of that is to claim that it’s unwise foreign policy.

    What the extracts do prove is that all these senior diplomats knew what was going on and participated in it.

    So either:
    (a) they were in on the (mysteriously non-evidenced) effort Trump is supposed to have made to get info supplied to his campaign, in which case they’d be implicated in the wrongdoing (if there was any – which given the current state of US law seems not to be the case anyway); or
    (b) the proposal was always that the info was to be given to the US government, which isn’t wrongdoing.

    Have a guess as to whether any of them will testify that they were taking part in these conversations knowing that it was about info being supplied to Trump’s campaign.

  39. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Even if there was a quid pro quo, the worst criticism that can be made of that is to claim that it’s unwise foreign policy.

    Let’s start there. Do you now acknowledge there was a quid pro quo?

    (b) the proposal was always that the info was to be given to the US government, which isn’t wrongdoing.

    Trump wasn’t really after info though. As the various witnesses made clear, he wanted the president of the Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into Biden. One of his potential opponents in the next election.

    I’m not sure why you think the public servants being ordered to help make this happen, being aware of that fact (and in fact seeking to complain or whistleblow in response) somehow makes it alright?

  40. JC

    So you now admit there was a quid pro quo, but don’t think there’s anything unusual or wrong about it? Just want to be clear here…

    Absolutely not dickhead. It’s not the first time you’ve been caught lying through your front teeth either. What I’m saying is that bartering deals isn’t unusual in the least whereas you make it sound as though it is. You really are moronic.

    There’s nothing extraordinary about this you clown

    .. was a comment in reference to the examples I gave. Stop your lying, you intellectual dishonest turd.

  41. iain russell

    As above – excellent encapsulation.

  42. Iampeter

    Even if there was a quid pro quo, the worst criticism that can be made of that is to claim that it’s unwise foreign policy.

    Yep, this is where the goalposts are now being moved to since it’s no longer possible to deny quid pro quo.

    Pretty sure no one thought Trump would end up more left wing and more corrupt than Hillary back during the election.

    #Winning.

  43. struth

    There you go Felix, you are as confused as IamPoyda, something to make your mother proud.

  44. Tim Neilson

    Let’s start there. Do you now acknowledge there was a quid pro quo?

    No, I said “even if”. The testimony is all son et lumiere – nothing specific.

    Do you now admit that the info was to go to the US government? I.e has the conspiracy theory that this was about getting info to Trump’s campaign died a death of embarrassment?

    I’m not sure why you think the public servants being ordered to help make this happen, being aware of that fact (and in fact seeking to complain or whistleblow in response) somehow makes it alright?

    Did you expect the investigation to be conducted in secret?

    If you think there’s anything unusual about fussy conversations over who’s going to make an announcement, you’ve obviously got no experience of large organisations.

    Let’s face it. We’re on impeachment attempt number 4 and conspiracy theory number 5 or 6 (it’s just so difficult to keep count), and tens of millions of dollars of public resources have been squandered over a period of three years (or more, given that all this started even before the 2016 election), and it’s all still just “oh boy! Any second now there’ll be real evidence that Trump did something wrong! Just a few million more of taxpayers’ money and a few weeks more clown show in Congress and we’re there!”

  45. FelixKruell

    JC:

    Absolutely not dickhead.

    We’ve reached that point again where the actual content of your posts approaches 0, and the personal attacks approach 100%…Such a shame. Bye now.

  46. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    There you go Felix, you are as confused as IamPoyda, something to make your mother proud.

    And you think this is ‘hearsay’ as well, right?

    How quickly you all move on from the actual topic once presented with first hand evidence of a quid pro quo from Trump’s handpicked ambassador…

  47. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    No, I said “even if”. The testimony is all son et lumiere – nothing specific.

    The evidence is very specific. I quoted it above. Feel free to explain why you don’t think that evidence is specific enough.

    Do you now admit that the info was to go to the US government? I.e has the conspiracy theory that this was about getting info to Trump’s campaign died a death of embarrassment?

    I don’t know anything about that ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s certainly not anything I’ve claimed, or seen claimed in the media. The accusation was that he sought assistance in his campaign by getting the Ukrainians to smear Biden.

    Let’s face it. We’re on impeachment attempt number 4 and conspiracy theory number 5 or 6 (it’s just so difficult to keep count),

    Really? This evidence goes directly to the concerns raised by the whistleblower, that started this impeachment process. And for all those millions of dollars, they’ve found the quid pro quo that you were telling me only last week didn’t exist.

  48. JC

    Kruell

    Don’t be under the misapprehension that I want to engage you in discussion. You’re too dishonest for that.

    You lie and dissemble every single time.

  49. struth

    There is not one piece of evidence against Trump in anything you quoted.
    Magical thinking doesn’t make it so Felix, no matter how bad you want it.
    When they are talking about the money being stopped, it was Biden who threatened to stop it.
    But you are not asking “why”
    Biden wanted it stopped so corruption was not investigated.
    Trump has every right to investigate corruption, and especially corruption using tax payer dollars.
    He has every right to ask questions, and especially to the Ukraine who have an agreement with the states to share that information.
    You got zilch, Nada, goose egg.

  50. struth

    Biden is going down.

    The swamp is trying to twist this with words, just like you are Felix, but there are things called facts and timelines.
    Pity about that.
    There is no Quid Pro Quo and actually if there was, that’s perfectly fine, the President is in charge of foreign policy, and the left don’t get it.
    You got nothing.
    And this will come to nothing.
    They are putting a noose around their own necks and Trump is playing them for the fools they are.
    If they pull this President down with their lies there will be a civil war and they know it.
    They just don’t know what else to do, it really is that simple.

  51. struth

    Eat this, Felix, you’ve been played.
    Gullible moron.

    Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee released the long-awaited transcript from senior National Security Council official Tim Morrison on Saturday, and immediately distorted it for the benefit of the anti-Trump media.

    It was a typical example of how Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and his staff have tried to skew the fact-finding process in an effort to inflate public support for impeachment, believing few will read the lengthy transcripts for themselves.

    First, the committee withheld the transcript since October 31, only releasing it after the first public hearings began last week. Morrison’s testimony was rumored to be very good for President Donald Trump’s defense — Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) had described Democrats in the room during the closed-door hearing as “sucking lemons” — and Republicans would have made good use of it, had they had the transcript available. But it was not provided.

    advertisement

    In the interim, Democrats had sole possession of the document. Schiff does not allow copies of the transcripts to be released to Republicans, either in paper or electronic form. If they want to read transcripts, they must do so one by one, in the presence of a Democrat committee staffer. Not only is that rule humiliating, but it also allows Democrats to control the flow of information and to prepare their public arguments with no fear of timely Republican rebuttal.

    In the Morrison case, Democrats released “key excerpts” that highlighted the few facts in his testimony that, they believe, help push the case for impeachment. Chief among these is that Morrison confirmed that he heard U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Gordon Sondland claim that he told a Ukrainian official, in a private “sidebar” meeting, that aid would be released if the Ukrainian prosecutor general would publicly announce an investigation into Burisma.

    But that is just hearsay evidence, as is Morisson’s confirmation of Charge d’affairs William Taylor’s testimony (repeated in public last week) that Sondland, after speaking to President Trump, “there was no quid pro quo, but President Zelensky must announce the opening of the investigations and he should want to do it.”

    Sure enough, CNN and other networks highlighted these and other supposedly damaging sections of Morrison’s testimony.

    These are the top news results on Google for the search “Tim Morrison,” as of Sunday morning, November 17:
    •CNN: “Ex-NSC official corroborates Sondland said he was directed by Trump on Ukraine“
    •NPR: “NSC Official Faults Sondland’s Role In ‘Shadow’ Ukraine Policy“
    •USA Today: “Morrison said he was ‘not comfortable’ with Ukraine President Zelensky being involved in US politics: the latest“
    •Daily Beast: “National Security Official Tim Morrison Feared Leaks of Trump’s Call to Ukraine President Would Be Damaging“
    •Politico: “Sondland said he was acting on Trump’s orders, aide told investigators“

    But these reports downplay or omit the most important parts of Morrison’s testimony for Trump’s defense:
    •Morrison testified “I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed” on the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to which he himself listened. That statement does not appear anywhere in the Democrats’ “key excerpts” document. He also testified that he “did not have a view” on whether President Trump’s comments to Zelensky on the phone call were “improper.”
    •Morrison testified that he was afraid that the conversation would leak — not because he thought the president had done anything wrong, as Democrats’ “key excerpts” document implies, but because he knew about what would happen, given “Washington’s polarized environment.” The Democrats’ summary of the document omits this telling exchange between Morrison and chairman Adam Schiff — no doubt, because it damages their case:

    THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. I just wanted to follow up a bit on this.

    One of the concerns, and there may be an overlap between the first two concerns you mentioned about the caII, and if the call became public. First, you said you wene concerned how it would play out in Washington’s polarized environment and, second, how a leak would affect bipartisan suppont for our Ukrainian partners.

    Were those concerns nelated to the fact that the President asked his Ukrainian countenpant to look into on investigate the Bidens?

    MR. MORRISON: No, not specifically.

    THE CHAIRMAN: So you didn’t think that the President of the United States asking his counterpart to conduct an investigation into a potential opponent in the 2020 election might influence bipartisan support in Congress?

    MR. MORRISON: No.

    THE CHAIRMAN: And you weren’t concerned that the President bringing up one of his political opponents in the Presidential election and asking a favor with respect to the DNC server or 2016 theory, you weren’t concerned that those things would cause people to believe that the President was asking his counterpart to conduct an investigation that might influence his reelection campaign?

    MR. MORRISON: No.

    THE CHAIRMAN: That never occurred to you?

    MR. MORRISON: No.

    THE CHAIRMAN: Did you recognize during the — as you listened to the call that if Ukraine were to conduct these investigations, that it would inure to the President’s political interests?

    MR. MORRISON: No.
    •Morrison contradicted Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the Democrats’ star witness in the closed-door hearings, who reported to Morrison directly. Morrison testified that while he admired his subordinate’s patriotism, he was irritated that Vindman failed to report concerns about the call directly to him. He said Vindman never raised concerns that something illegal had happened. He also said he accepted all of Vindman’s proposed edits to the call record, contrary to Vindman’s testimony. And while he did not think that Vindman was a leaker, he testified: “I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.” He said that Vindman’s sloppy practices were partly the result of his own predecessor at the NSC, Dr. Fiona Hill — another one of the Democrats’ star witnesses, who, like Morrison, is due to testify publicly this week.
    •Morrison testified that other foreign aid being offered by the U.S. at the time was reportedly under review — not just to Ukraine. And he confirmed earlier testimony that the aid being held up did not include the essential Javelin anti-tank missiles, which were being delivered to Ukraine through a separate procurement process.
    •Morrison testified that he had no concerns that President Trump asked President Zelensky, during the July 25 phone call, to meet with his personal attorney, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
    •Morrison kept NSC lawyers informed about what was going on — not because he was concerned Trump had done anything wrong, but because he wanted “to protect the president” from whatever Sondland was doing.

    All of these facts are missing in the Democrats’ “key excerpts.” The Democrats do acknowledge a few exculpatory moments, but downplay them.

    For example, the “key excerpts” document includes Morrison’s testimony that the transcript of the July 25 call was placed on a more secure server by “mistake” — but focuses on the fact that it was not removed from the more secure server after that.

    Morrison also confirmed that the Ukrainians did not know that the aid was being held up until a Politico article appeared on August 28, and he said that Sondland’s side conversation with a Ukrainian official in September was “the first time something like this [investigations] had been injected as a condition on the release of the assistance.” Democrats include that latter quote, but downplay it.

    Similarly, Democrats distorted the testimony of Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, whose testimony was also released on Saturday. Democrats highlighted the fact that Williams testified that she was told by another aide that Trump told Pence to skip Zelensky’s inauguration in May — though she did not hear that first-hand.

    They quote her as saying the July 25 call “for me shed some light on possible other motivations behind a secunity assistance hold.” But they leave out her saying she “didn’t have any firsthand knowledge as to the reasoning.”

    Both Morrison and Williams are scheduled to testify in public hearings before the committee on Tuesday.

  52. Tim Neilson

    The evidence is very specific. I quoted it above. Feel free to explain why you don’t think that evidence is specific enough.

    I suppose you mean this?

    I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.

    Even now he doesn’t say why he had that view of “likely”. Just his own Trump Derangement Syndrome kicking in by way of speculation, probably – he certainly doesn’t say anyone in the administration told him that.
    See struth’s extracts above, anyway.

    I don’t know anything about that ‘conspiracy theory’. It’s certainly not anything I’ve claimed, or seen claimed in the media.

    Yes of course, that’s an absolutely truthful statement, as is evidenced by all your posts about how sinister it was that Trump mentioned Giuliani in his call with the Ukrainian President…
    oh, wait…
    help me out here Felix…

    And for all those millions of dollars, they’ve found the quid pro quo that you were telling me only last week didn’t exist.

    Did I? I don’t actually recall saying whether or not there was a quid pro quo – as I noted above I think that’s a non-issue anyway.

  53. Iampeter

    Kruell

    Don’t be under the misapprehension that I want to engage you in discussion. You’re too dishonest for that.

    You lie and dissemble every single time.

    As usual JC is engaging in the very things he is accusing everyone else of doing.
    No arguments, just insults and projection.

    I’m sure Arky will be here any moment to call for JC’s long overdue moderation…

  54. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    There is not one piece of evidence against Trump in anything you quoted.

    There’s evidence of a quid pro quo. Which is what I claimed earlier on, remember?

    So far pretty much all of the testimony is supporting the original accusation – Trump sought a quid pro quo of Ukraine announcing they were investigating Biden and friends if Ukraine wanted the US’s continued support (and military aid). We haven’t really seen any testimony casting serious doubt on this. Maybe it’s still coming, but I suspect unlikely given those who could provide it have been barred from testifying by the White House.

  55. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Even now he doesn’t say why he had that view of “likely”. Just his own Trump Derangement Syndrome kicking in by way of speculation, probably – he certainly doesn’t say anyone in the administration told him that.

    We will find out more about why he had that view when he testifies this week. The key point is that he told the Ukrainians.

    Yes of course, that’s an absolutely truthful statement, as is evidenced by all your posts about how sinister it was that Trump mentioned Giuliani in his call with the Ukrainian President…
    oh, wait…

    It remains sinister and unexplained why Rudy was involved in any of this. None of which has anything to do with your contention that there was a conspiracy theory to ‘provide’ information to Trump’s campaign. Rudy was agitating for an investigation, not information.

    Did I? I don’t actually recall saying whether or not there was a quid pro quo – as I noted above I think that’s a non-issue anyway.

    Such a non-issue that you can’t possible form a view on it?

  56. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3214909, posted on November 18, 2019 at 1:34 pm

    We will find out more about why he had that view when he testifies this week

    Excellent! We’re making progress. You’re walking back from Do you now acknowledge there was a quid pro quo?.

    The key point is that he told the Ukrainians.

    And you’ve been criticising other commenters’ scepticism of hearsay because? His recent claim that he said it is evidence only that he said it – nothing more.

    It remains sinister and unexplained why Rudy was involved in any of this. None of which has anything to do with your contention that there was a conspiracy theory to ‘provide’ information to Trump’s campaign. Rudy was agitating for an investigation, not information.

    More dissembling. You were going ballistic about alleged proof that Trump was seeking an illegal benefit to his campaign, because (you claimed) information could be a benefit within the campaign laws, and now you’re trying to claim you weren’t pushing that conspiracy theory?

    Such a non-issue that you can’t possible form a view on it?

    I don’t recall saying anything about it. I think it’s a non-issue.
    Of course I could possibly form a view on it – after all, you have, despite the lack of evidence supporting that view.

  57. struth

    Felix, read the actual post I put up.
    I highlighted the bits you need to read, so you don’t have to go through the lot, as I can tell, you’re not much into collecting evidence and information.
    You are posting Democrat bullshit that’s giving half of what was said, and twisting the other half.
    It’s ok, I don’t expect an apology.
    Just here to help.

  58. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Excellent! We’re making progress. You’re walking back from Do you now acknowledge there was a quid pro quo?.

    Err, no. He established there was a quid pro quo, and it was communicated to the Ukrainians. His testimony will merely fill in the gaps around who told what to whom.

    And you’ve been criticising other commenters’ scepticism of hearsay because? His recent claim that he said it is evidence only that he said it – nothing more.

    That’s the opposite of hearsay.

    You were going ballistic about alleged proof that Trump was seeking an illegal benefit to his campaign, because (you claimed) information could be a benefit within the campaign laws, and now you’re trying to claim you weren’t pushing that conspiracy theory?

    No, I didn’t. I was saying that “Trump was seeking an illegal benefit to his campaign, because (you claimed) an (investigation of Biden) could be a benefit within the campaign laws”

    Of course I could possibly form a view on it – after all, you have, despite the lack of evidence supporting that view.

    Except first hand testimony…by multiple people.

  59. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    You are posting Democrat bullshit that’s giving half of what was said, and twisting the other half.

    I posted actual witness transcripts…you are the one who posted media reports. Projecting much?

  60. JC

    It remains sinister and unexplained why Rudy was involved in any of this.

    No it doesn’t. What remains sinister is your mendacious stupidity. The US presidency is a very powerful position unfortunately. The president is in charge of the executive which includes anyone working either in paid or non paid capacity adjoined to the White House. The president has the right and the power to appoint anyone he fucking wants for any executive task or job. He can also fire anyone he chooses at will. You idiot.

    Heading to Vox each morning for talking points is not going to help you, you doofus.

  61. JC

    As usual JC is engaging in the very things he is accusing everyone else of doing.
    No arguments, just insults and projection.

    I’m sure Arky will be here any moment to call for JC’s long overdue moderation…

    Oh God, one of the Bobbsey twins is calling for moderation after he’s spent around 6 angry months here insulting and sneering at everyone.
    Plodes, hand back your ipad to the orderly.

  62. John of Mel

    Felix

    I posted actual witness transcripts

    Witness to what? That he decided to “inject” this alleged quid pro quo condition into the conversation?

    where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement

    May be this was a pre-planned “injection” so that he could later use it against Trump. This seems like a very likely scenario, considering that the “Ukrainian” stage of impeachment was in planning long before September.

  63. JC

    Kruell says:

    FelixKruell
    #3214955, posted on November 18, 2019 at 3:31 pm

    Struth:

    You are posting Democrat bullshit that’s giving half of what was said, and twisting the other half.

    I posted actual witness transcripts…you are the one who posted media reports. Projecting much?

    No you didn’t , you dishonest smoldering turd. You posted this one below. One! And it wasn’t a Trump Gotcha either.

    FelixKruell
    #3214338, posted on November 17, 2019 at 6:43 pm

    From Sondlands revised statement:

    Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks. I also recall some question as to whether the public statement could come from the newly appointed Ukrainian Prosecutor General, rather than from President Zelensky directly.
    6. Soon thereafter, I came to understand that, in fact, the public statement would need to come directly from President Zelensky himself.

    This isn’t what you think it means, you dunderhead. The US requested assurance the aid being handed over wouldn’t be immediately banked in Swiss bank accounts split among the top brass in the Ukraine. Sure, that’s a quid pro quo of sorts, but it wasn’t to help Trump nail the dishonest Biden family and others who were also on the lamb.

    You really are an idiot… a thoroughly dishonest one too.

  64. FelixKruell

    John:

    Witness to what? That he decided to “inject” this alleged quid pro quo condition into the conversation?

    Yep, to that. Meaning the Ukrainians had reason to believe that there was a quid pro quo.

    May be this was a pre-planned “injection” so that he could later use it against Trump. This seems like a very likely scenario, considering that the “Ukrainian” stage of impeachment was in planning long before September.

    That would be a very cunning plan by an Ambassador appointed solely because he was a major donor to Trump’s campaign…

  65. FelixKruell

    JC:

    This isn’t what you think it means, you dunderhead. The US requested assurance the aid being handed over wouldn’t be immediately banked in Swiss bank accounts split among the top brass in the Ukraine. Sure, that’s a quid pro quo of sorts, but it wasn’t to help Trump nail the dishonest Biden family and others who were also on the lamb.

    And your evidence for this is….

    My evidence on the other hand is Sondland’s own words, where he understand the quid pro quo to be about investigating Biden. Not ensuring the aid didn’t make it’s way to Switzerland…

  66. JC

    And your evidence for this is….

    Stop using words like “evidence” that have no context, you moron.

    First off, you lied about having transcripts. You presented one and even that is not what you think it means.

    The “evidence” is the fucking transcript you idiot. The one you presented. Ask the other bobbsey twin, Plodes, to help you. You’re such an idiot.

  67. FelixKruell

    JC:

    First off, you lied about having transcripts.

    I provided them. You quoted from them. And it means what it says. We hope anyway, given he already had to revise his testimony once.

    You seem unwilling to actually read what the transcript says. It clearly articulates a quid pro quo. And you’re again resorting to personal attacks to hide your inadequacies.

  68. JC

    I provided them.

    You’re lying again. You posted one partial transcript of a comment that has nothing to do with Trump and a quid pro quo.

    You quoted from them. And it means what it says. We hope anyway, given he already had to revise his testimony once.

    It means what exactly? It means Ukraine was given an ultimatum to shape up on ensuring any aid was protected from corruption. You absolute moron.

    You seem unwilling to actually read what the transcript says

    Another lie.

    It clearly articulates a quid pro quo.

    Dickhead, it speaks nothing about Trump demanding they investigate Biden. And Trump was perfectly within his rights to request and investigation too.

    And you’re again resorting to personal attacks to hide your inadequacies.

    I’m doing two things. I’m saying that you’re basically a dishonest sack of shit and also explaining why. Now fuck off.

  69. Iampeter

    The “evidence” is the fucking transcript you idiot. The one you presented. Ask the other bobbsey twin, Plodes, to help you. You’re such an idiot.

    He doesn’t need my help. He’s annihilating you idiots.

    I’m doing two things. I’m saying that you’re basically a dishonest sack of shit and also explaining why. Now fuck off.

    This is just projection on your part. You hurl this at everyone who disagrees with you.
    You should probably take your own advice…

  70. Dr Fred Lenin

    This peter must be a woman. Judt has to have the last word.,scroll comrades scroll past.

  71. Iampeter

    Oh God, one of the Bobbsey twins is calling for moderation after he’s spent around 6 angry months here insulting and sneering at everyone.
    Plodes, hand back your ipad to the orderly.

    Also…this comment…it can’t be for real. The lack of self awareness…zomg.

  72. Tim Neilson

    No, I didn’t. I was saying that “Trump was seeking an illegal benefit to his campaign, because (you claimed) an (investigation of Biden) could be a benefit within the campaign laws”

    What the flying duck? Can you re-read that and see if it makes any sense?

    You said straight out that Trump was in trouble for illegally obtaining a benefit for his campaign. When I pointed out that the current weight of US authority was that information isn’t a “thing of value” within such laws you consistently insisted that information was a “thing of value” and you never suggested that the “thing of value” Trump was in trouble over was anything other than information (until now that you’ve cottoned on to some unremarkable conversations about who would announce an investigation).

    You really are getting into 1984 rewriting of history now.

  73. Tim Neilson

    If the mere investigation of Biden was the “thing of value” why did it matter so much to you whether the Ukrainians spoke to Giuliani?
    What difference would that make to whether an investigation was the “thing of value” he was in trouble for?
    You know very well that you ran the “information to the Trump campaign” wild goose chase for days on end.

  74. JC

    Plodes,

    Stfu, you moron. You have the self awareness and the analytical ability of a boiled mussel. Hand in your ipad to the orderly and head back the room.

  75. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    You said straight out that Trump was in trouble for illegally obtaining a benefit for his campaign. When I pointed out that the current weight of US authority was that information isn’t a “thing of value” within such laws you consistently insisted that information was a “thing of value” and you never suggested that the “thing of value” Trump was in trouble over was anything other than information (until now that you’ve cottoned on to some unremarkable conversations about who would announce an investigation).

    You’re the one who was obsessed about information. Not me. I simply said the original call transcript suggested Trump was seeking a campaign benefit from the Ukrainians.

    As for that unremarkable conversation, it clarifies that the Ukrainians knew their aid was being withheld, and might not be released until they delivered that investigation into a Biden. Also known as the quid pro quo, that you and others have claimed for weeks didn’t exist (and still can’t bring yourself to admit).

  76. JC

    I simply said the original call transcript suggested Trump was seeking a campaign benefit from the Ukrainians.

    No, it didn’t, you hallucinating moron. You’re just making shit up as you go along. You stated that you had posted transcripts hen you posted a single one that had no direct gotcha of Trump requesting favors.

  77. struth

    You are willfully ignorant Felix.
    Actually you are peddling what you know is false to get to a conclusion you want.
    Sad.

  78. JC

    You are willfully ignorant Felix.

    No, he most certainly isn’t. He’s a dissembling sack of shit.

    Here:

    About a week later, on Sept. 7, Mr. Sondland called the president after Mr. Taylor had raised concerns about aid to Ukraine being contingent on investigations. Mr. Sondland asked Mr. Trump, “What do you want from Ukraine?” to which the president responded, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.”

    WSJ

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawmakers-dispute-impact-of-first-week-of-public-impeachment-hearings-11574007673

    This undoes everything he’s said.. not that he understood his single post of the link.

  79. FelixKruell

    JC:

    You stated that you had posted transcripts hen you posted a single one that had no direct gotcha of Trump requesting favors.

    So now you’re admitting I did post transcripts? How confusing…

    I never claimed it had a Trump gotcha. I claimed it showed the Ukrainians understood there to be a quid pro quo. Investigate Biden or your support gets mysteriously held up. It’s there in the transcript I quoted. Read the transcript.

  80. JC

    So now you’re admitting I did post transcripts? How confusing…

    I’m very serious here, Kruell. I cannot figure out if you just a low IQ argumentative retard or a serial liar.
    To repeat, now for the third or fourth time, you posted a transcript of ONE comment that you didn’t understand. One, not plural. One! This posting was never in doubt, you dickhead. BUT It wasn’t more than one.

    I never claimed it had a Trump gotcha. I claimed it showed the Ukrainians understood there to be a quid pro quo. Investigate Biden or your support gets mysteriously held up. It’s there in the transcript I quoted. Read the transcript.

    Do I really need to go to the tape again. You claimed you posted a transcript (when there was only one) as evidence of Trump’s corruption when it did nothing of the sort. Furthermore, the excerpt I posted about the person you thought provided evidence of Trump’s corruption clearly shows Trump never asked for anything back.

  81. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3215252, posted on November 18, 2019 at 9:51 pm

    See below.

    FelixKruell
    #3197905, posted on October 30, 2019 at 9:35 pm
    Tim:

    What would possibly be illegal (possibly – we’ve been through this before though understanding statutory interpretation isn’t your strong suit) would be if Trump requested the Ukraine to give information to his campaign – which isn’t in the transcript.

    The transcript certainly suggests (but doesn’t prove) that’s exactly what Trump did. The subsequent evidence pretty much confirms it.

    So by your own test, this is a valid investigation of something that ‘could possibly be illegal’

  82. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3215252, posted on November 18, 2019 at 9:51 pm

    See below.

    FelixKruell
    #3167564, posted on September 25, 2019 at 10:21 pm
    Tim:

    Remember, whatever “of value” means, the prohibition covers “accepting” it as well as “soliciting” it. You can’t seriously be saying that it’s illegal for a candidate to be told information by a foreigner.

    The allegation is active soliciting, not passive accepting. The transcripts will either confirm that, or not.

  83. Tim Neilson

    Hello, Felix?

    FelixKruell
    #3168281, posted on September 26, 2019 at 6:15 pm
    Tim:

    Yeeees! That’s what I said!!!! Quote – “I never suggested that someone accepting an Aldi bag full of cash wouldn’t be caught.” Is that too complex for you?

    So you think the law catches passive receipt of cash, but not passive receipt of information? What was that about logic?

    Sorry, Mueller doesn’t get to say what the law is. Very clearly it isn’t, because no-one has ever denied that Don Jr met with a supposed Russian precisely to get info, and even the Dems aren’t demanding that he be charged for that.

    He’s a pretty well respected republican lawyer. And it seems plenty of others agree with him too. Best way to test it is to take it to court…and actually the Democrats did want Don Jr to be charged for that exact crime. You really should pay for attention.

  84. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    What would possibly be illegal (possibly – we’ve been through this before though understanding statutory interpretation isn’t your strong suit) would be if Trump requested the Ukraine to give information to his campaign – which isn’t in the transcript.

    This was your quote. Raising the idea of ‘information’. As I said above…

  85. FelixKruell

    JC:

    I’m very serious here, Kruell. I cannot figure out if you just a low IQ argumentative retard or a serial liar.

    That’s because I’m messing with your head. You’re focusing on whether I posted one transcript or more than one transcript? Really? My comment was based on all the transcripts I’d read. Then I was asked to produce the transcripts. So I picked the one that most clearly demonstrated my point.

    None of this evidence on it’s own damns Trump. No one transcript does that. That’s why there’s an investigation, with lots of different witnesses. It’s still to be seen whether the Democrats can tie this together to make a case for impeachment. As I said at the very top, we aren’t there yet.

    What the evidence to date HAS shown is that there was an understanding by the Ukrainians of a quid pro quo – investigate Biden or your military aid gets held up. That understanding was communicated to them by Trump’s handpicked ambassador. Similar messages appear to have been given to them by others (like Guiliani). All of this gives a lot more context to the infamous call between Trump and the Ukrainians that started this whole thing.

    Or put another way – we now know that most of the excuses made by Trump and his supporters in relation to the original call were nonsense.

  86. struth

    From Sondlands revised statement:

    Also, I now do recall a conversation on September 1, 2019, in Warsaw with Mr. Yermak. This brief pull-aside conversation followed the larger meeting involving Vice President Pence and President Zelensky, in which President Zelensky had raised the issue of the suspension of U.S. aid to Ukraine directly with Vice President Pence. After that large meeting, I now recall speaking individually with Mr. Yermak, where I said that resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks

    He is quoting himself here.
    This may be hard for you to grasp Felix but “I” does not stand for the POTUS unless the POTUS says it.

  87. struth

    You might be backing away from your bullshit now Felix, but you are not doing it because you want to .
    You’ve been shown to be a gullible twat.
    Ta ta.

  88. Tim Neilson

    FFS you mendacious clown.

    Firstly look at what I said:
    What would possibly be illegal (possibly – we’ve been through this before though understanding statutory interpretation isn’t your strong suit) would be if Trump requested the Ukraine to give information to his campaign – which isn’t in the transcript.

    (Note that the one you’ve quoted from does post- date the other two, so my reference to “we’ve been through this before” is accurate.)

    Then look at your response.

    Then look at the other comments of yours I’ve posted.

    E.g.
    I said Sorry, Mueller doesn’t get to say what the law is. Very clearly it isn’t, because no-one has ever denied that Don Jr met with a supposed Russian precisely to get info, and even the Dems aren’t demanding that he be charged for that.

    You said He’s a pretty well respected republican lawyer. And it seems plenty of others agree with him too. Best way to test it is to take it to court…and actually the Democrats did want Don Jr to be charged for that exact crime. You really should pay for attention.

    Which part of that ISN’T calling for an investigation into whether Trump was seeking info to be supplied to his campaign?

    I’m not going to trawl through the internet to find all the others – these prove incontrovertibly that you’re lying when you deny pushing the conspiracy theory about Giuliani/information to the Trump campaign.

  89. JC

    That’s because I’m messing with your head. You’re focusing on whether I posted one transcript or more than one transcript? Really? My comment was based on all the transcripts I’d read.

    You’re only messing with your own, you pathetic liar.

    FelixKruell
    #3214955, posted on November 18, 2019 at 3:31 pm
    Struth:

    You are posting Democrat bullshit that’s giving half of what was said, and twisting the other half.

    I posted actual witness transcripts…you are the one who posted media reports. Projecting much?

    It’s like catching fish in a barrel with you, Felix Bobbsey.

  90. FelixKruell

    Struth:

    This may be hard for you to grasp Felix but “I” does not stand for the POTUS unless the POTUS says it.

    I never said it did. Re-read my comment.

    “What the evidence to date HAS shown is that there was an understanding by the Ukrainians of a quid pro quo – investigate Biden or your military aid gets held up. “

  91. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    I’m not going to trawl through the internet to find all the others – these prove incontrovertibly that you’re lying when you deny pushing the conspiracy theory about Giuliani/information to the Trump campaign.

    All of your quotes show YOU asking about ‘info’. Not me.

  92. stackja

    FK – Over and over again and expecting different results

  93. JC

    Kruell, you know you’re an idiot , right? You know this?

  94. Tim Neilson

    FelixKruell
    #3215892, posted on November 19, 2019 at 4:51 pm

    I repeat.

    You said He’s a pretty well respected republican lawyer. And it seems plenty of others agree with him too. Best way to test it is to take it to court…and actually the Democrats did want Don Jr to be charged for that exact crime. You really should pay for attention.

    Which part of that ISN’T calling for an investigation into whether Trump was seeking info to be supplied to his campaign?

    You mendacious turd.

  95. FelixKruell

    Tim:

    Which part of that ISN’T calling for an investigation into whether Trump was seeking info to be supplied to his campaign?

    The part where I don’t mention the word ‘info’ at all?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.