Discussion in 'US Politics' started by Zable, Sep 15, 2019.
Edited: I posted a Jimmy Dore video here that was taken down, so I've removed it.
I'm laughing at you Jimmy Dore.
So am I, but probably for a different reason. I like that he uses political humor to call out the absurd and hypocrisy.
Kyle Kulinski: Democrats Picked Wrong Argument for Impeachment
What Do Swing Voters In Pennsylvania Think Of Trump?
When I posted that his video was up. I was laughing at his hypocrisy of commenting on an impeachment he wasn't even following until AM asked him on for PushBack. And then he stumbles over the quid pro quo....
This Week With George Stephanopoulos Sunday 11/17/19 | ABC News Today |
That video is still up on the previous page. The one that was taken down was from one of his comedy shows titled "The Moment the Impeachment Hearing Unraveled."
In Jimmy's defense, the hearings are just as convoluted and tedious as Russia-gate was.
I do agree with him that's it's fascinating how the corruption of Democrats has also been uncovered as a result of both Russia-gate and Ukraine-gate.
It goes back to what I said earlier about a swamp trying to police a swamp. I also agree with him and other lefty commentators that Dems use these scandals to distract from actual policies.
Eric Swalwell demonstrated his own "whistleblowing" skills:
I was referring to this video you name: the notion that JD knew the moment the impeachment hearing unravelled when, on PushBack, he said he hadn't been following the impeachment hearing until AM contacted him the day before PB was taped; which, presumably, gave him just time for a crash course. That seems to be on favoured Republican talking points.
The hearings are tedious business yes. Convoluted, no.
As tedious as Russiagate, no.
As convoluted as Russiagate, hell no. The latter dealt with 10 in-their-own-right impeachable offences, some of them cross-linked with off-shoots of their own. That's why the house went with this straightforward Ukraine case of a misuse of taxpayers monies for personal gain, executed in conditions where human obstacles to the President's desires were removed from the picture in unpleasant circumstances.
The Russia investigations had a special counsel: Mueller; and he and his team worked in secret, taking depositions. The Ukraine investigations didn't have a special counsel, which necessitated the 3 House committees spearheading the investigations to undertake the gathering of secret depositions in the basement.
The release of the transcripts of those depositions to the public is akin to the release of the Mueller Report to the public. This also meant that those who gave depositions now had a chance to read the depositons of others.
The public hearings are mostly a regurgitation of the dipositions, given in the witnesses own words (similar in effect to having Mueller explain in his own words, the difference being that Mueller as a prosecutor was reluctant to speak on the Russiagate cases whereas these folk in Ukrainegate are witnesses testifying). The public hearings are also opportunities for those witnesses to amend the records (since they now know where their deposition has been in conflict with other depositions) or to introduce fresh evidence. At the end of these hearings conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, a report will be given to the House Judiciary Committee for review and whatever else. The process is straightforward, abiding by bipartisan rules agreed to prior to the commencement of the public hearings.
What is a farce is the Republican reps pretending they are in the dark over just about everything, being forced by the House Intel chairman to abide by rules they didn't agree to and wasting everyone's time reverting to the rules of conduct for non-impeachment hearings just so they can make Adam Schiff look bad when he comes down on them.
JD agreeing to talk on a subject he wasn't following is indefensible.
Jimmy was talking about a specific line of questioning, namely Jim Jordan's questioning of Ambassador Taylor.
This excerpt from the video Jimmy was specifically talking about sure sounds convoluted to me:
Jim Jordan: "Ambassador Taylor recalls that Mr. Morrison told Ambassador Taylor that I told Mr. Morrison that I conveyed this message to Mr. Yarmak on September 1, 2019,
in connection with Vice President Pence's visit to Warsaw and a meeting with President Zelensky." We've got six people having four conversations in one sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding.
For further context, here's the full video of Jim Jordan questioning Ambassador Taylor, which Jimmy watched, aired, and referred to.
And this was the moment the impeachment hearing unravelled?
Evidently, some folk's brains don't work as well as others'.
ETA: How does Jim Jordan's statement make the whole of Ukrainegate convoluted?
This particular line of questioning sure did. More from Jim Jordan and Ambassador Taylor:
Jim Jordan: I mean, even though you had three opportunities with President Zelensky for him to tell you, "You know what? We're gonna do these investigations to get the aid." He didn't tell you three different times. Never makes an announcement. Never tweets about it. Never does the CNN interview. Ambassador, you weren't on the call, were you? You didn't listen in on President Trump's call, and President Zelensky's call?
Ambassador Taylor: I did not.
Jim Jordan: You never talked with Chief of Staff Mulvaney?
Ambassador Taylor: I never did.
Jim Jordan: You never met the president.
Ambassador Taylor: That's correct.
Jim Jordan: You had three meetings, again, with Zelensky, and it didn't come up.
Ambassador Taylor: And two of those they never heard about, as far as I know. There was no reason for it to come up.
Jim Jordan: President Zelensky never made an announcement. This is what I can't believe. And you're their star witness. You're their first witness.
I'm sure people stand in awe of your massive intellect. I'm with Dore and Jordan on this one. As Jordan said, "I've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand than this."
The basic premise of why Trump is being investigated over his call to Ukraine is understandable. It's when you start breaking down the minutia that it starts to get confusing.
Then they are fools.
Only when done by folk intent on making it confusing, IMO.
ABC News-Ipsos poll....
Majority Thinks President Donald Trump's Actions In Ukraine Were Wrong: Poll | Morning Joe | MSNBC | Nov 19th
Jordan shares his takeaways from grilling impeachment witnesses | Hannity | Nov 19th
For thinking you have a massive intellect? I don't want to be accused (again) of putting words in your mouth, so I'm asking for clarification.
Yeah, I don't think the confusion comes from people making it confusing. I liked when Jimmy's wife quipped "Who's on first?" because it had that sort of vibe to it.
Speaking of which, the Jimmy Dore video in question is back up, and I still fail to see how his assessment is wrong. It feels like a game of telephone to me just like Jimmy says. He even cuts to a pundit who says a staff member to Ambassador Taylor "kind of overhead that conversation." Sorry, but the way this is being presented does sound quite silly.
Ukrainegate impeachment saga worsens US-Russia Cold War
I was responding to what you wrote:
Frank Underwood said: ↑
I'm sure people stand in awe of your massive intellect.I trust you understand yourself so I don't believe I need to give you clarification.
In that case, don't be so hard on yourself. I've heard some folk's brains don't work as well as others'.
That's right, you heard it from me.
Yes, let's pretend that they're fools and that they're brains don't work as well as others', instead of admitting that the convoluted way the message was relayed is indeed convoluted.
And then there's the staffer who "kind of" overheard the conversation. This all sounds like beauty salon gossip, yet it's being used as evidence in an impeachment hearing.
Separate names with a comma.