• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

Liquid Karma said:
If it's anything like his written testimony to Mueller, it would make him look like even more of a clown. Apparently he replied "I don't remember" or such to almost every single question from Mueller.
Click to expand...

But he had the best memory!
 
MichDeac25 said:
How does Congress expedite a case that has already been filed in court?
Click to expand...

Cases with immediate political ramifications are expedited regularly. I don’t know the exact protocol but it can be done. I read some article recently saying it wasn’t be pursued in an expedient manner.
 
ABCDeac said:
Cases with immediate political ramifications are expedited regularly. I don’t know the exact protocol but it can be done. I read some article recently saying it wasn’t be pursued in an expedient manner.
Click to expand...

pretty sure that needs to be consented to by all parties.
 
Junebug said:
The whistleblower’s complaint referred to a “word-for-word transcript” of the July 25 call. Because we know that, despite Trump’s claim, the transcript the White House released was not word-for-word, and because the three ellipses in the transcript that was released appear in contexts where Trump might have said something (more) damning, the complaint has given rise to speculation that a word-for-word transcript was created during the call and might still exist somewhere.

Or, it is possible that the whistleblower mistakenly thought a word-for-word transcript was being made but it wasn’t, and the one that the White House released is all there is.
Click to expand...

Either way there's no "perfect" phone call.
 
Junebug said:
The whistleblower’s complaint referred to a “word-for-word transcript” of the July 25 call. Because we know that, despite Trump’s claim, the transcript the White House released was not word-for-word, and because the three ellipses in the transcript that was released appear in contexts where Trump might have said something (more) damning, the complaint has given rise to speculation that a word-for-word transcript was created during the call and might still exist somewhere.

Or, it is possible that the whistleblower mistakenly thought a word-for-word transcript was being made but it wasn’t, and the one that the White House released is all there is.
Click to expand...

This could be the only one, but didn't Vindman testify that he tried to edit it and that his suggested edits were rejected? That suggests that there are, at an absolute minimum, other drafts/proposed edits (or at least there were at some point). Hard to believe those proposed edits/drafts aren't preserved somewhere.

As for Bolton, a little research shows that the judge in Kupperman's case had agreed to an expedited schedule, but one that would stretch into December/January. So, Democrats withdrew that supboena and chose not to push on Bolton. I think stopping that push is a mistake - they should be screaming at the top of their lungs that the court could and should move more quickly. If Kupperman/Bolton's lawyers resist that, and that prevents an earlier resolution, that would be dovetailing nicely with the rest of the message regarding obstructionism. Or push Bolton elsewhere in front of a different judge.

Just clear that Democrats are checking the box - running this quickly, will vote to impeach, knowing the Senate won't remove. Likely doesn't change with Bolton, but the only way I see that changing is with an absolute bombshell that catches everyone's attention. Bolton seems like the only potential source there (unless, of course, Trump testifies - which there is a 0.00001 chance of happening).
 
Junebug said:
The whistleblower’s complaint referred to a “word-for-word transcript” of the July 25 call. Because we know that, despite Trump’s claim, the transcript the White House released was not word-for-word, and because the three ellipses in the transcript that was released appear in contexts where Trump might have said something (more) damning, the complaint has given rise to speculation that a word-for-word transcript was created during the call and might still exist somewhere.

Or, it is possible that the whistleblower mistakenly thought a word-for-word transcript was being made but it wasn’t, and the one that the White House released is all there is.
Click to expand...

DrG41 said:
Either way there's no "perfect" phone call.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point. All sides should stop calling this a "transcript" for the reasons you state.
 
I’m pretty sure the real “transcript” not a transcript is locked away in the highly classified briefs whatever and has not been released.
 
Louis Gossett Jr said:
I’m pretty sure the real “transcript” not a transcript is locked away in the highly classified briefs whatever and has not been released.
Click to expand...

Wasn't that one of the points that the WB made? Trump's staff immediately knew this phone call was problematic so they took the unusual step of making the call records classified attempting to cover up the president's attempted corruption. If the WB is correct, there is further documentation of the call that's been stored as classified.
 
I've heard/read that they use a computer program that transcribes in real time the calls. Having heard how incomprehensibly Trump speaks on a regular basis, I imagine that any automatic transcription is going to need some serious editing just to make it legible to normal human brains.

There's a strong chance that in this editing process -- or even reediting for release after it was secured in the classified server -- that some potentially damning stuff was omitted or elided.

The way I see it, the WH thought there was nothing damning on the version of the transcript they released and were genuinely surprised to see it still blow up. The insistence about the "perfect" call and for critics to "read the transcript" suggests to me that there is something particularly bad on the underlying versions.
 
It's amazing that people following this so closely (myself included) don't know the answer as to whether "the transcript" we have is the only version, a different version, a slightly different and edited version, or what. Strikes me as an indictment of the media and/or credit to the administration for intentional obfuscation. And it really makes a difference, particularly assuming there is a more complete version out there somewhere that is still unreleased.
 
qgbb2qj7hzwaziojq6hj.jpg
 
ABCDeac said:
It's amazing that people following this so closely (myself included) don't know the answer as to whether "the transcript" we have is the only version, a different version, a slightly different and edited version, or what. Strikes me as an indictment of the media and/or credit to the administration for intentional obfuscation. And it really makes a difference, particularly assuming there is a more complete version out there somewhere that is still unreleased.
Click to expand...

I agree. It's frustrating how media just accept the WH narrative without questioning it. Trump said "transcript" so media just ran with it.
 
ABCDeac said:
It's amazing that people following this so closely (myself included) don't know the answer as to whether "the transcript" we have is the only version, a different version, a slightly different and edited version, or what. Strikes me as an indictment of the media and/or credit to the administration for intentional obfuscation. And it really makes a difference, particularly assuming there is a more complete version out there somewhere that is still unreleased.
Click to expand...

The key thing is it's not the only contact as was represented by the WH and rabid, lying Republicans.
 
RJKarl said:
The key thing is it's not the only contact as was represented by the WH and rabid, lying Republicans.
Click to expand...

Is there still a Manchester Hall at wake ? Is that Doug Manchester ? Same one being implicated in the pay for ambassadorship story?
 
The only thing lasting that will come of this is Swalwell‘s fart video, which will never be forgotten.
 
tintinisahottie said:
The only thing lasting that will come of this is Swalwell‘s fart video, which will never be forgotten.
Click to expand...

LOL. Typical Trump supporter. Somehow a Dem breaking wind is worse than all of this GOP corruption and coverup. Swalwell may have farted, but the smell is from your own shit.
 
Last edited:
They keep doing what guilty people would do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top