Is Donald Trump Done for?

[FriendlyFire]

Nunes is also neck deep in this mess.

Lev Parnas Helped Rep. Devin Nunes’ Investigations
Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, helped arrange meetings and calls in Europe for Rep. Devin Nunes in 2018, Parnas’ lawyer Ed MacMahon told The Daily Beast.
Nunes aide Derek Harvey participated in the meetings, the lawyer said, which were arranged to help Nunes’ investigative work. MacMahon didn’t specify what those investigations entailed.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/lev-parnas-helped-rep-devin-nunes-investigations

 

[Kyriakos]

I think it is pretty obvious that whoever the whistleblower is, they don't like Trump. It would be another diversion to spend a few months on focusing on how they don't like Trump.
For me the problem isn't the whistleblower, but the (once again) weak case for removing Trump. You don't go for Capone for tax stuff if you can't even win that, cause then people have the right to focus on why you opted to go for tax stuff instead of murder.

 

[Kyriakos]

It's Mike Pence

Wouldn't Yosemite Sam Bolton be a more logical candidate there? (assuming he had somehow known about the phone call)
Maybe that military guy told a few more tens of people.

 

[Arakhor]

I think it is pretty obvious that whoever the whistleblower is, they don't like Trump.

You mean that they've met him?

 

[Lexicus]

Inadvertently? I didn't say I wanted to know who embellished the story, this is what I said:



"If the story was embellished". The word "if" immediately precedes "the story", the word "who" isn't even in the sentence. I trust my objectivity over your reading comprehension.

Regardless of the exact wording, it's already clear from your previous posts on this subject that you've already decided someone embellished the story.

 

[rah]

With all the testimony the whistle-blowerAnd is not important anymore. His duty is done and the law protects him. He need not be an accuser now.
And for all we know, he has already testified. (or she)

 

[Kyriakos]

With all the testimony the whistle-blowerAnd is not important anymore. His duty is done and the law protects him. He need not be an accuser now.
And for all we know, he has already testified. (or she)

Vindland does seem suspicious in that regard, given afaik of all those questioned he was the only one to claim that he thought the phone-call included illegal stuff.
Then also said he leaked the contents to a lot of people anyway, without bothering to ask his immediate superior.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Sondland's testimony was so bad that the GOP lawyer gave up a huge chunk of his time to cross-examine him as every question he tried to ask blew up in his face. Sondland sang like a bird and directly stated there was a quid pro quo.

There are calls for the impeachment of Pompeo for his involvement in the bribery scheme. There are also rumors that Pompeo plans on quitting due to the hit to his reputation and/or to run for the Senate.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I dont have to win a popularity contest for that to be true

I think you have the causal link backwards. It isn't that no one trusts your objectivity just because you are so unpopular, you are so unpopular because no one trusts your objectivity. Well, there's certainly other factors as well, but that's the direction of the link.

 

[Socrates99]

Sondland said the quid pro quo was a WH visit for investigating the 2016 election interference and Burisma



You have the quote, identify these things. Be specific



Saying it again doesn't make it true, that aint my reason for wanting to know who it is. I know the whistle blower got it 2nd hand, the story I'm talking about is the story they gave and the story they got from the source (Vindman I guess). I want to see them tell their version of events, I want the source to do the same, and I want the phone call transcript so we can see if 'the story' was embellished by the source or the whistle blower.

The paragraph that came before "I'll say it again" does make it true. Why does it matter if the second hand story matches the firsthand story? Having the firsthand account makes hearsay irrelevant. When you have guys directly involved saying things were messed up you dont really need to talk to the guy who says "I heard something pretty messed up is going on."

It's like if you were a kid who threw a rock into the window while your friends Gordy, Rudy, Mick and Mike were with you. The only reason Johnny didn't come was because he knew you were looking to cause trouble. Meanwhile Alex, the boy who lives across the street saw the whole thing. Your mom finds out what you did from another anonymous kid and that she could talk to Alex, Johnny, Gordy, etc if she wanted the truth. What's the motivation to find out who the tattletale was? To bully them. If Gordy and Alex spilled the beans thatd be enough for mom to ground you. Doesn't matter who ultimately went to your mom other than a need for revenge on that kid for being a rat.

 

[Berzerker]

Regardless of the exact wording, it's already clear from your previous posts on this subject that you've already decided someone embellished the story.

So my exact wording confused you? You changed my exact wording and its obvious. Thats why I trust my objectivity over your reading comprehension. I haven't decided, thats why I want to see them testify and face cross examination. Here's what I said about Vindman and the whistle blower:

I have to rewatch today's testimony but it does appear Vindman is the leaker, he testified he told some people about the call before being told by a lawyer to not tell anyone. Vindman used the word 'demand' to characterize Trump's request for a favor and apparently the whistle blower did the same thing. The problem is other people are claiming they didn't hear a demand so it probably comes down to a matter of interpretation.

My exact word was 'interpretation', not embellishment.

I think you have the causal link backwards. It isn't that no one trusts your objectivity just because you are so unpopular, you are so unpopular because no one trusts your objectivity. Well, there's certainly other factors as well, but that's the direction of the link.

I wasn't making a causal link, I was showing why I trust my objectivity over Lex's 'regardless of the exact wording' reading comprehension. Now if you think his reading comprehension is more trust worthy, then where did I say the leaker or whistle blower embellished what they heard? The question is not do people trust my objectivity, I suspect few on this forum would get many votes for that, but do they trust my exact words over Lex's 'interpretation'.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I wasn't making a causal link, I was showing why I trust my objectivity over Lex's 'regardless of the exact wording' reading comprehension. Now if you think his reading comprehension is more trust worthy...

I personally cannot think of anything less trustworthy than your objectivity.

 

[Takhisis]

I think it is pretty obvious that whoever the whistleblower is, they don't like Trump.

You mean that they've met him?

From all the glaring clues that point to his vast insecurity, I am certain that deep down Donald Trump doesn't like Donald Trump.

 

[Lexicus]

I personally cannot think of anything less trustworthy than your objectivity.

Probably Trump's objectivity, but it is a fairly close call.

 

[Berzerker]

I personally cannot think of anything less trustworthy than your objectivity.

I didn't say you found my objectivity more trustworthy than Lex's reading comprehension, your opinion is irrelevant.

Probably Trump's objectivity, but it is a fairly close call.

Regardless of the exact wording

You changed what I said to smear me and you're complaining about Trump?

 

[Dekker]

I didn't say you found my objectivity more trustworthy than Lex's reading comprehension, your opinion is irrelevant.





You changed what I said to smear me and you're complaining about Trump?

You assume you're being attacked and you... Defend Trump?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

You assume you're being attacked and you... Defend Trump?

He must defend the dear leader at all costs, even if it harms himself.

 

[Sommerswerd]

My exact word was 'interpretation', not embellishment.

No. @Lexicus was right. Your exact word was "embellished." You said:

I want the phone call transcript so we can see if 'the story' was embellished by the source or the whistle blower.

So rather than just admit you said it and try to argue that you meant it differently, you're now trying to claim you didn't say it at all.

Your claim that you didn't say "embellish" and instead said "interpretation" and then accusing Lexicus of putting words in our mouth is exactly the same tactic as what Trump and his supporters do so often, and part of why @Timsup2nothin keeps citing your lack of credibility.

 

[Kyriakos]

Maybe we can impeach Berzerker.

Forum posting is srs bsns.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Maybe we can impeach Berzerker.

Forum posting is srs bsns.

LOLs I was literally just thinking about you and how long it would take you to post some snarky thing about what I just said. Still smarting from the last beating I gave you I see hmm?