Red Mosquito

Also caveat that as bad as the ‘transcript’ is, it’s not certain to be an accurate, complete version of what was said. In fact, I’m honestly not certain what the argument would be for treating it as such.

you're so great, you're so great, we have so much to learn from you, you help us so much, you are so great, so great.

McParadigm wrote:Also caveat that as bad as the ‘transcript’ is, it’s not certain to be an accurate, complete version of what was said. In fact, I’m honestly not certain what the argument would be for treating it as such.

You believe this is incomplete or altered?

Strat wrote:Ny god these world leaders really know how to suck up to Trump though.

I’m sure they do that with every president to keep the money flowing.

So he also agreed to meet with him at the white house for all of this?

meatwad wrote:

Strat wrote:Ny god these world leaders really know how to suck up to Trump though.

I’m sure they do that with every president to keep the money flowing.

I assume that's how most interactions between US/Russia/China and their colonies are. This isnt nearly as bad as I had hoped. Probably illegal. But not the killer blow it was hyped to be.

As impeachment unfolds, we should be watching any and all stories about Pence. If we start seeing some Senate leaders cozying up to him publicly, I’d say that’s a fair indication of whether or not the Senate has an appetite for kicking Trump out and working with Godboy.

tragabigzanda wrote:As impeachment unfolds, we should be watching any and all stories about Pence. If we start seeing some Senate leaders cozying up to him publicly, I’d say that’s a fair indication of whether or not the Senate has an appetite for kicking Trump out and working with Godboy.

Yea hopefully in a sense this impeachment drags out long enough where Trump is still the candidate running for reelection yet enough obvious crimes were committed that the voting public won't hold enough support for him and he'll just lose the election. I think it might be harder to win an election against Pence.

Strat wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:As impeachment unfolds, we should be watching any and all stories about Pence. If we start seeing some Senate leaders cozying up to him publicly, I’d say that’s a fair indication of whether or not the Senate has an appetite for kicking Trump out and working with Godboy.

Yea hopefully in a sense this impeachment drags out long enough where Trump is still the candidate running for reelection yet enough obvious crimes were committed that the voting public won't hold enough support for him and he'll just lose the election. I think it might be harder to win an election against Pence.

Pence doesnt inspire the far right like T-dogg.

No but he might pull back in some of those voters who support some of trumps policies but find her tactics repugnant. I guarantee there’s already a calculus going on to this end.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Also caveat that as bad as the ‘transcript’ is, it’s not certain to be an accurate, complete version of what was said. In fact, I’m honestly not certain what the argument would be for treating it as such.

You believe this is incomplete or altered?

I still believe there’s no real cause for us to assume it is complete. Just because it is stunningly bad for them doesn’t mean it’s comprehensive. If the transcript is complete and there’s no additional context to exacerbate its damage, then the White House has no reason to fight the whistleblower complaint. In fact, under those circumstances, they should want the whistleblower to come forward so the news cycle is “nothing new was said by whistleblower today, after much hype by Democrats” instead of “holy shit this fucking transcript.”

Let me give you a very fictional ‘for instance’: suppose, just for a moment, that one sentence was removed from this already incredibly damning, impeachment-worthy transcript. In that one sentence, an irritated president who loves to bluster and threaten suggests that things could get “much worse, like very scary stuff” for Ukraine if they don’t do the things he wants. You know, like that time he threatened to “obliterate” Iran. Or to “totally destroy” North Korea. Only now it’s in the context of making personal demands for election assistance. If I were the current White House, I would strip that one sentence and send the rest out, hoping that people would get so worked up about how bad the stuff in the script was that they didn’t wonder what I left out....they just assumed it was everything. And then I would fight the whistleblower, because under these circumstances I still have something to hide.

Just as an example. And I’m not saying I think it’s probable that it was changed. Just that we have no reason to assume we know it wasn’t.

Debbie Powell stated on CNN just now that she has heard from enough republican senators that if the facts play out as they appear to might be...it is a tipping point for them.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:Also caveat that as bad as the ‘transcript’ is, it’s not certain to be an accurate, complete version of what was said. In fact, I’m honestly not certain what the argument would be for treating it as such.

You believe this is incomplete or altered?

I still believe there’s no real cause for us to assume it is complete. Just because it is stunningly bad for them doesn’t mean it’s comprehensive. If the transcript is complete and there’s no additional context to exacerbate its damage, then the White House has no reason to fight the whistleblower complaint. In fact, under those circumstances, they should want the whistleblower to come forward so the news cycle is “nothing new was said by whistleblower today, after much hype by Democrats” instead of “holy shit this fucking transcript.”

Let me give you a very fictional ‘for instance’: suppose, just for a moment, that one sentence was removed from this already incredibly damning, impeachment-worthy transcript. In that one sentence, an irritated president who loves to bluster and threaten suggests that things could get “much worse, like very scary stuff” for Ukraine if they don’t do the things he wants. You know, like that time he threatened to “obliterate” Iran. Or to “totally destroy” North Korea. Only now it’s in the context of making personal demands for election assistance. If I were the current White House, I would strip that one sentence and send the rest out, hoping that people would get so worked up about how bad the stuff in the script was that they didn’t wonder what I left out....they just assumed it was everything. And then I would fight the whistleblower, because under these circumstances I still have something to hide.

Just as an example. And I’m not saying I think it’s probable that it was changed. Just that we have no reason to assume we know it wasn’t.

also, McP

McParadigm wrote:LOL

And also:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technolo ... im-acosta/

Lol. Yea, fuck this white house.

Bill Barr’s team told the ODNI to suppress a whistleblower report...about a phone call that implicates Bill Barr in the president's request for foreign election assistance.

Of course.

White House having a great day, they will certainly handle all of this with no issues:

Im assuming that was accidentally sent, yea?

Strat wrote:Im assuming that was accidentally sent, yea?

They did immediately recall it.

as I've found so many times in the past, recalls only happen if the person you're recalling from likes you enough to let it happen.

Message Recall Failure:

Your message

To:
Cc:
Subject:
Sent:


cannot be recalled on .

she's going to have a bad no good day.

What Republicans broke ranks for this? It’s an absolute sabotage of Trump’s re-election campaign.