Written by Heather Cox Richardson.

[NinjaKnight]

The most laughable part of this terrifying thread is the same actors proving time and time again why they are still supporting Trump in 2020: they don't give a shit about facts or reality.

They make up what they want to believe and stick with it, truth be damned.

 

[Cubs79]

The most laughable part of this terrifying thread is the same actors proving time and time again why they are still supporting Trump in 2020: they don't give a shit about facts or reality.

They make up what they want to believe and stick with it, truth be damned.

I agree. Though to be fair, we don't know everything with regards to these texts, and we certainly do not know what Trump knew. In saying that, this is pretty bad stuff and the people essentially pushing it to the side to defend Trump and his people are basically exhibiting the 5th ave mindset. The texts are damning enough to where everyone should be asking questions and demanding answers.

 

[Boosted87]

Transcripts don't have ellipsis so I know it wasn't a transcript.

Being fair - it's pretty close to a transcript. Someone like Vindman would have testified if there were large or material omissions or if a different document was used in place of the one he reviewed. He did testify to two edits he proposed but were not included. I believe he testified that aside form those two suggested edits, the call memo was in line with his recollection. It's not a perfect word-for-word transcript but I don't think anything else exists aside from what was produced.

 

[Cubs79]

Being fair - it's pretty close to a transcript. Someone like Vindman would have testified if there were large or material omissions or if a different document was used in place of the one he reviewed. He did testify to two edits he proposed but were not included. I believe he testified that aside form those two suggested edits, the call memo was in line with his recollection. It's not a perfect word-for-word transcript but I don't think anything else exists aside from what was produced.

The number of edits not admitted isn't nearly as important as to what those edits would have said though. Vindman said one of the ellipses is where Trump discussed tapes of Biden with Zelensky, which is a pretty big thing to leave out of a transcript.

 

[Boosted87]

The number of edits not admitted isn't nearly as important as to what those edits would have said though. Vindman said one of the ellipses is where Trump discussed tapes of Biden with Zelensky, which is a pretty big thing to leave out of a transcript.

I don't think there's much to that. Vindman called the TELCON "very accurate." The proposed edit you are referring to is "There are recordings" when he's talking about Biden stopping the prosecution. In context it's almost assuredly Biden's now famous video at the CFR deal where he talks about pushing for Shokin's firing. The other is the use of "company" in the transcript where Vindman says it should be "Burisma."

While left out, they were done so as part of the initial process for reviewing and editing the record. That's much different than if Vindman was testifying that portions originally part of the record had been removed after the fact. If you assume Vindman is right and put his edits in, it doesn't really add much considering how substantial the rest of the evidence is anyway.

 

[Crazyhole]

Huh? None of this makes any sense and I don't think you understand what history is. History is essentially just the recording and documenting of events, it is neither good or bad, it is just documenting things that have happened. History says that OJ Simpson was a great football player, and someone who likely murdered his ex wife. History says that Bill Cosby was a great comic, and a serial rapist. So the idea that Rudy can only be defined by what he did in the 80s is just nonsense. I do believe history is important, but Rudy's history didn't stop in the 80s and that isnt the only relevant timeframe of his life at all. What Rudy was doing in 2019 and beyond has absolutely nothing to do with what he did in the 80s.

You're the one that brought up history. I just wonder what parts of history are relevant to you and what parts aren't. Giuliani has a history of battling corruption and law-breaking, but now that doesnt apply. Trump has a history of being extremely sketchy so that shows a pattern and is applicable. Where is the demarcation point between history that is important and history that should be dismissed?

I'm not saying you or I are the arbiter of what matters and what doesn't, I'm just curious how you personally make the determination of whether something from 30 years ago is proof of a person's motivations today.

 

[sk8knight]

You're the one that brought up history. I just wonder what parts of history are relevant to you and what parts aren't. Giuliani has a history of battling corruption and law-breaking, but now that doesnt apply. Trump has a history of being extremely sketchy so that shows a pattern and is applicable. Where is the demarcation point between history that is important and history that should be dismissed?

I'm not saying you or I are the arbiter of what matters and what doesn't, I'm just curious how you personally make the determination of whether something from 30 years ago is proof of a person's motivations today.

Far More recently, Giuliani had a firm that was contracted by a Ukrainian city to help them fight corruption. Which has been brought up here before.

 

[Cubs79]

You're the one that brought up history. I just wonder what parts of history are relevant to you and what parts aren't. Giuliani has a history of battling corruption and law-breaking, but now that doesnt apply. Trump has a history of being extremely sketchy so that shows a pattern and is applicable. Where is the demarcation point between history that is important and history that should be dismissed?

I'm not saying you or I are the arbiter of what matters and what doesn't, I'm just curious how you personally make the determination of whether something from 30 years ago is proof of a person's motivations today.

I was absolutely not the one who brought it up. Sir Galahad brought up his prosecutions of mafia members, and then SK8 had a smarmy comment about it.

What does it apply to? We know he was a prosecutor in the 80s, so explain to me how that applies to 2019-20? Nobody is dismissing Rudy's past, but what you are guys are trying to do is say that because he prosecuted the mob over 30 years ago, that he somehow can't be corrupt now. That is just a ridiculous concept and I already listed 2 guys (and there are thousands of others) who were at one point in their lives looked at as legends in their fields and very respected people, who are now looked at as terrible people. At this point we don't know what Rudy's role in all of this was, but I do know that the fact he prosecuted mafia members in the 80s has nothing to do with it either way.

 

[Crazyhole]

I agree. Though to be fair, we don't know everything with regards to these texts, and we certainly do not know what Trump knew. In saying that, this is pretty bad stuff and the people essentially pushing it to the side to defend Trump and his people are basically exhibiting the 5th ave mindset. The texts are damning enough to where everyone should be asking questions and demanding answers.

Yes, 100%. I dont know what to believe at this point. Giuliani has publicly gone after Parnas as being a crook, but he worked with him for a while. Trump says he doesn't know anything about Parnas, which I do tend to believe, but also seems close to throwing Rudy under the bus which seems like CYA. It looks to me like the worst actor in all of this is Hyde and I can't tell if he actually had anything to do with anything going on because it just seems so bizarre. I'd like to know how he ever came into the fray. Parnas makes sense because he had contacts. Giuliani makes sense because he was working for Trump. Hyde? I just dont understand what he brought to the table.

 

[Crazyhole]

I was absolutely not the one who brought it up. Sir Galahad brought up his prosecutions of mafia members, and then SK8 had a smarmy comment about it.

What does it apply to? We know he was a prosecutor in the 80s, so explain to me how that applies to 2019-20? Nobody is dismissing Rudy's past, but what you are guys are trying to do is say that because he prosecuted the mob over 30 years ago, that he somehow can't be corrupt now. That is just a ridiculous concept and I already listed 2 guys (and there are thousands of others) who were at one point in their lives looked at as legends in their fields and very respected people, who are now looked at as terrible people. At this point we don't know what Rudy's role in all of this was, but I do know that the fact he prosecuted mafia members in the 80s has nothing to do with it either way.

Its applicable because it's the same kind of thing. OJ being a football legend has nothing to do with being a killer. Cosby being a comedian has nothing to do with being a rapist . Giuliani investigating crimes is exactly what the defense is about. This is completely conjecture, but dont you think when rudy was fighting the mob back in the 80s he probably was talking to people who were none-too-savory in his attempts to get evidence?

 

[Cubs79]

Its applicable because it's the same kind of thing. OJ being a football legend has nothing to do with being a killer. Cosby being a comedian has nothing to do with being a rapist . Giuliani investigating crimes is exactly what the defense is about. This is completely conjecture, but dont you think when rudy was fighting the mob back in the 80s he probably was talking to people who were none-too-savory in his attempts to get evidence?

I am sure he was, but none of that has anything to do with what is going on now. For one, he was also a public employee in the 80s who had political aspirations. Doing notable things and doing them well would obviously help those aspirations. Now he is Trump's personal attorney whose only goal is to help his client. These aren't comparable scenarios in the slightest. Plus, there is a difference in talking to someone to get information for a case, and actually working with someone.

And also, I am sorry because I don't want to sound like I am just picking on an old guy, but let's be honest, he sounds batshit crazy now. He didn't sound crazy when he was in his 40s prosecuting people.

 

[Crazyhole]

I am sure he was, but none of that has anything to do with what is going on now. For one, he was also a public employee in the 80s who had political aspirations. Doing notable things and doing them well would obviously help those aspirations. Now he is Trump's personal attorney whose only goal is to help his client. These aren't comparable scenarios in the slightest.

And also, I am sorry because I don't want to sound like I am just picking on an old guy, but let's be honest, he sounds batshit crazy now. He didn't sound crazy when he was in his 40s prosecuting people.

Lol, rudy was always this way. He dressed in drag on SNL. The guy is just goofy but he's good at what he does.

I'm still 50/50 on this whole thing. I can't dismiss anything either side is producing as evidence. To that end, I'd like to know if the documents that Rudy claims are proof of money laundering by Biden are legit. I'd also like to know if parnas was acting in connection with trump. I'd like to know why, if she is as benign as she claims to be, would a trump lackey be surveilling Yovanovitch and reporting it to Parnas who was ignoring him. So much of it doesnt add up unless you look for a reason to believe or deny some type of conspiracy.

 

[sk8knight]

I was absolutely not the one who brought it up. Sir Galahad brought up his prosecutions of mafia members, and then SK8 had a smarmy comment about it.

What does it apply to? We know he was a prosecutor in the 80s, so explain to me how that applies to 2019-20? Nobody is dismissing Rudy's past, but what you are guys are trying to do is say that because he prosecuted the mob over 30 years ago, that he somehow can't be corrupt now. That is just a ridiculous concept and I already listed 2 guys (and there are thousands of others) who were at one point in their lives looked at as legends in their fields and very respected people, who are now looked at as terrible people. At this point we don't know what Rudy's role in all of this was, but I do know that the fact he prosecuted mafia members in the 80s has nothing to do with it either way.

My comment was directly applicable to your dismissal of relevant experience because it damages your argument. You also ignore the anti-corruption work he’s done recently and also his work as an elected official. As if none of it matters.

Now, saying he sounds batshit crazy now is relevant. But that doesn’t make him corrupt by itself and he has earned some respect for his work over the decades. You can make an argument that he’s become corrupt without totally dismissing everything that he’s done before. Instead, you want to paint him as just some lawyer with no bona fides who is an idiot and only cares about being a Trump lackey. In order to do this, you have to dismiss all that came before Trump. Only that’s not accurate.

 

[NinjaKnight]

People still stupid enough to support Trump in 2020 are beyond saving

 

[UCFKnight85]

My comment was directly applicable to your dismissal of relevant experience because it damages your argument. You also ignore the anti-corruption work he’s done recently and also his work as an elected official. As if none of it matters.

Now, saying he sounds batshit crazy now is relevant. But that doesn’t make him corrupt by itself and he has earned some respect for his work over the decades. You can make an argument that he’s become corrupt without totally dismissing everything that he’s done before. Instead, you want to paint him as just some lawyer with no bona fides who is an idiot and only cares about being a Trump lackey. In order to do this, you have to dismiss all that came before Trump. Only that’s not accurate.

This whole thread is hilarious. One nugget of unverified but possibly really creepy behavior by some random loser from CT is shared, and suddenly the TDS people are in full "Trump hires hitmen" mode without further thought. Incredible.

And now OP is sharing yet another random entry from this random writer in a separate thread, because it's totally important and stuff.

 

[Crazyhole]

This whole thread is hilarious. One nugget of unverified but possibly really creepy behavior by some random loser from CT is shared, and suddenly the TDS people are in full "Trump hires hitmen" mode without further thought. Incredible.

And now OP is sharing yet another random entry from this random writer in a separate thread, because it's totally important and stuff.

Gotta think the CIA is going to be talking to this guy. I'm pretty sure they take the issue of surveilling an ambassador pretty seriously.

 

[fried-chicken]

Gotta think the CIA is going to be talking to this guy. I'm pretty sure they take the issue of surveilling an ambassador pretty seriously.

Lev Parnas is very well connected.

 

[NinjaKnight]

This whole thread is hilarious. One nugget of unverified but possibly really creepy behavior by some random loser from CT is shared, and suddenly the TDS people are in full "Trump hires hitmen" mode without further thought. Incredible.

And now OP is sharing yet another random entry from this random writer in a separate thread, because it's totally important and stuff.

The only delusional people are inbred mouth breathing dipshits like yourself who are still stupid enough to support Trump in 2020.


Parnas: I’ll Release a Photo Each Time Trump Denies Knowing Me

 

[Crazyhole]

Lev Parnas is very well connected.

Clearly he is. Somehow I doubt Hyde is.

 

[fried-chicken]

Clearly he is. Somehow I doubt Hyde is.

Probably not.

Spoiler

 

[Crazyhole]

Probably not.

Spoiler

Idk, read about the guy. He seems like he might literally be insane. Got arrested at Doral, claiming there were hitmen out to get him. Threatened to shoot a neighbor for petting his dog. Doesnt seem like someone who is playing with a full deck.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Idk, read about the guy. He seems like he might literally be insane. Got arrested at Doral, claiming there were hitmen out to get him. Threatened to shoot a neighbor for petting his dog. Doesnt seem like someone who is playing with a full deck.

Yes, because Trump is the Pinnacle of mental well being.

 

[sk8knight]

Idk, read about the guy. He seems like he might literally be insane. Got arrested at Doral, claiming there were hitmen out to get him. Threatened to shoot a neighbor for petting his dog. Doesnt seem like someone who is playing with a full deck.

What Parnas has might be absolutely credible. But doesn’t this feel like another case of the Democrats pushing another in the long line of their accusers that doesn’t stand up to the even the barest light of day.