Straight Dope Message Board

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders.

There are alternatives takes on how Biden could be helpful to the Democratic cause. 4951

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by PhillyGuy

How is it that so many anti-Trump Americans sincerely think that the most successful American confidence man of our time is an idiot?

Trump is an idiot. There is zero question on that matter.

I wrote out a post giving about 1/3rd of the variety of evidence to support that statement and the gophers ate it. I don't feel like retyping it at the moment.

So I'll say this:

1) Michael Jackson was horrible with money and stopped developing at about age 12. For as much as he earned, he was never able to bring in more than he lost. He was both an idiot and a genius. He was a bad investment, if your intentions were benign, and a great investment if your goal is for Michael to simply serve as a host for your parasitic feeding.

Payday loans are not unique to the poor. Many people have a large amount of cash flow while being, basically, idiots with a very specific talent for which they are greatly rewarded.

See "tom barrack michael jackson". See also "tom barrack donald trump otaiba" or "colony capital trump wall".

2) If you read The Big Con, the definitive book on con artists, it's famously said that all con artists are broke because they have a gambling addiction. They live for the rush and that always ends up screwing them over, but they can't help it.

3) Overall, I can prove both from evidence, math, experience, and basic logic that Trump is an idiot who, yes, has a Michael Jackson sort of genius. If any of those categories in particular appeal to you, I can lay out for you the subsection in that line which proves the point. 4952

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

"colony capital trump wall"

In this vein, I'll also suggest:

"giuliani naftogaz" and "giuliani trump insurance"

"elliott broidy romanian defense"

"michael cohen novartis" and "michael cohen at&t"

"michael flynn turkey energy"

The parasites know what's good eatins, even the dumb ones like Cohen and Flynn. 4953

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. Biden appears to be going senile, and Trump would crush him in debates. And if you type "creepy Uncle Joe" into youtube, you will find numerous videos which can be turned into campaign commercials to broadcast in October 2020. On top of that Biden is an old white male, which is used to disparage Republican candidates all the time.

If Biden is going senile, then at least Trump will have company. Trump sounds like someone emptied his skull with an ice cream scoop and replaced it with cottage cheese.

That debate would be the the ultimate "get off my lawn" event. Add Bernie Sanders, and you have "Grumpy Old Men III "

Trump has no way to crush Biden in a debate. Anything he can go after Biden about, he's done already, and ten times worse. Trump isn't running against just Biden (or any other Dem nominee). He's running against the 2016 Trump, too, and all the scandals, broken promises and "anyone but Hillary" voters that he has to try to keep.

I'd love to see a Trump debate vs Mayor Pete. Talk about the ultimate in differing styles. Mayor Pete may be one of the most prepared candidates I've ever seen. And, as an openly gay man, he's familiar with the concept of not taking the bait with any barbs that Trump may throw his way.

That would be someone getting crushed in a debate. 4954

[DSeid]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. ...

This could in fact be true. No idea. And?

Trump is an idiot, and not a savant one.

To the degree Trump has a talent it is his capacity to demean others. His interest is in demeaning every possible competitor and to the degree he is able to catalyze some inside the D tent ugliness, bonus. It, and claiming how best and most unfairly treated ever he is, is really all he knows how to do.

There is no serious debate about the simple facts. Trump is a pathological liar who believes that the tools of the United States government are his to use for his personal benefit and anything that could potentially inhibit that should be destroyed (our intelligence community, our diplomatic corp, the scientific community, so on). He attempted to bully a U.S. dependent nation with threats that were against American interests into doing something beneficial for him personally, and created an "irregular" channel to facilitate the pursuit of his personal gains over identified American interests.

Those are facts. You can believe in Santa Claus or that Godzilla just destroyed New York, facts are still facts. 4955

[steatopygia]

I think at this point we can say that very few people are going to change their opinion on Trump. If that Biden-Trump debate happened, people would come away with two very different conclusions based on their beliefs prior to the debate. Some would see a liar and an idiot, some would see a masterful businessman who tells it like it is.

We can sum it up with this meme that has been around since before the 2016 election;

"Trump is the poor man's idea of a rich person, the stupid man's idea of a smart person, and the weak man's idea of a strong person."

For someone to believe that Trump, who has always been a liar and a cheat, has the best interests of the country at heart, and that thousands of people who have demonstrated personal integrity throughout their whole careers are out to get him, is nonsensical. They are not going to change their minds. 4956

[rock party]

Trump's success is not from intelligent, problem solving/negotiating abilities. His success is mostly due to him being threatening and his willingness to fight dirty and take people down. 4957

[Aspenglow]

Originally Posted by DSeid

This could in fact be true. No idea. And?

Trump is an idiot, and not a savant one.

To the degree Trump has a talent it is his capacity to demean others. His interest is in demeaning every possible competitor and to the degree he is able to catalyze some inside the D tent ugliness, bonus. It, and claiming how best and most unfairly treated ever he is, is really all he knows how to do.

There is no serious debate about the simple facts. Trump is a pathological liar who believes that the tools of the United States government are his to use for his personal benefit and anything that could potentially inhibit that should be destroyed (our intelligence community, our diplomatic corp, the scientific community, so on). He attempted to bully a U.S. dependent nation with threats that were against American interests into doing something beneficial for him personally, and created an "irregular" channel to facilitate the pursuit of his personal gains over identified American interests.

Those are facts. You can believe in Santa Claus or that Godzilla just destroyed New York, facts are still facts.

Originally Posted by steatopygia

I think at this point we can say that very few people are going to change their opinion on Trump. If that Biden-Trump debate happened, people would come away with two very different conclusions based on their beliefs prior to the debate. Some would see a liar and an idiot, some would see a masterful businessman who tells it like it is.

We can sum it up with this meme that has been around since before the 2016 election;

"Trump is the poor man's idea of a rich person, the stupid man's idea of a smart person, and the weak man's idea of a strong person."

For someone to believe that Trump, who has always been a liar and a cheat, has the best interests of the country at heart, and that thousands of people who have demonstrated personal integrity throughout their whole careers are out to get him, is nonsensical. They are not going to change their minds.

Originally Posted by rock party

Trump's success is not from intelligent, problem solving/negotiating abilities. His success is mostly due to him being threatening and his willingness to fight dirty and take people down.

I wish I had written any one of, or all three of, these posts. Splendidly said. 4958

[enipla]

Originally Posted by Ravenman

Because Rudy has contacted every liar in the Eastern Bloc who is willing to make shit up about the Bidens.

"The who? Sure, what's in it for me 'n my boys" 4959

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by steatopygia

I think at this point we can say that very few people are going to change their opinion on Trump. If that Biden-Trump debate happened, people would come away with two very different conclusions based on their beliefs prior to the debate. Some would see a liar and an idiot, some would see a masterful businessman who tells it like it is.

The polls from the last series of debates tell a different story.

Every time there was a debate between Clinton and Trump, the national polls swung from near 50/50 to something more like 80/20.

And then, two weeks later, they start moving back towards 50/50.

There's another debate, the polls swing to 80/20, and two weeks later, they start going back the other direction.

When people watch Trump, nearly everyone realizes that he's stupid. And then either they forget or their friends, the media on the right, and/or their need to support the home team takes over and they force the information out of their heads.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com...tion-forecast/

Everyone knew that Trump was an idiot. They saw it with their own eyes and believed that it was true. When they saw it again, they realized that their first instinct had indeed been absolutely correct. And when they saw it AGAIN, they realized AGAIN, that their first read and second read were both correct and that Trump was an idiot.

My dad watched the debates - I didn't - and would meet me for breakfast the next day in a panic that the country might really vote for that idiot and he couldn't believe that somehow someone so stupid had actually make it to the last leg.

Two weeks later, he was telling me about how great a read The Art of the Deal was and defending Trump's intelligence even though, at that time, I was still open to the idea that Trump was still playing it up just to rope in the stupidest quadrant of the country and the only reason I had to believe that Trump was stupid was based on my dad's earlier testimony about what he saw in the debates.

Ultimately, you're dealing with the human condition.

The Germans knew in their hearts and deeply understood that the Jews were evil and harmful for years and years, and knew that their government was killing them. And then one day, they stopped believing that and believed that they had been shameful and that it was only other people who had spotted the signs of what had happened.

The human capability to make what they need to be true be the truth is incredible and horrifying.

If anyone believes that Trump is smart, they should watch the debates. I've never seen them but, apparently, Trump was clearly a moron and probably you already saw that and knew that - and then you voted for him. And now you're out lying to us, because the alternative is to admit to the shame of what you did and knew you were doing.

(Note: "you" at the end is Trump voters, not steatopygia.) 4960

[guizot]

It's true that Trump's an ignorant jackass who will readily resort to shameless, venal, and dishonorable tactics, but his "success" mostly comes from a reptilian-brain facility for scamming. He scams so much that it's an unthinking reflex--the way a lizard automatically sticks out its tongue to catch flies.

For a scam to work it takes dupes. The dupes of this country--combined with the ethno-nationalists and knee-jerk party-line voters--were just enough to get him elected. 4961

[Sage Rat]

I'll also note, for the record that Art of the Deal was not written by Trump, nor was his book about his political views. The two men who wrote those books, who spent enough time with Trump to be able to craft the works, have both come out saying that Trump is an idiot.

And likewise, a real life Forest Gump would just be some guy who's on the edge of needing to be under assistive care, for an inability to fully mentally mature and live as an adult. But, given an authorial treatment, Gump becomes a wandering sage of brilliance.

That's what we in the business call "fiction". 4962

[dontbesojumpy]

Originally Posted by asahi

I think there will be an effort to put Trump in jail, but I also suspect that his partisans will claim that it's political retribution, which would then pave the way for a future republican to do the same.

To be put in jail, one must be found guilty of some criminal action. It's silly to act like we can't punish a criminal because they are prominent politically. Politics shouldn't factor in, crime is crime.

If the fear political retribution from the other side, I'd remind you this isn't China or Russia--the US hasn't much of a reputation for jailing 100% innocent people for political reasons. So I'd hope that if the GOP tries to start jailing Dems for something, the courts would justly adjudicate. As they would with Trump--if he goes to jail it won't be because of politics. His supporters might say otherwise, but it won't be true. And if we start letting crimes go unpunished because of fear of what the wrong-headed/wrong-sided perpetrators' rhetoric, where are we as a country? 4963

[aruvqan]

Originally Posted by Locrian

4) He’s misplaced all his adderall and Sudafed.

5) He might hear REALLY bad news about overcooked steak and ketchup consumption.

Well, the grill marks/burnt outside of a steak has been purportedly linked to cancer, and as someone who is currently dealing with colorectal cancer I really can not wish that on anybody [but a sudden case of baldness and a bad reaction to spray tan is fair game ...] 4964

[dontbesojumpy]

Originally Posted by asahi

I think there will be an effort to put Trump in jail, but I also suspect that his partisans will claim that it's political retribution, which would then pave the way for a future republican to do the same.

To be put in jail, one must be found guilty of some criminal action. It's silly to act like we can't punish a criminal because they are prominent politically. Politics shouldn't factor in, crime is crime.

If the fear political retribution from the other side, I'd remind you this isn't China or Russia--the US hasn't much of a reputation for jailing 100% innocent people for political reasons. So I'd hope that if the GOP tries to start jailing Dems for no reason, the courts would justly adjudicate. As they would with Trump--if he goes to jail it won't be because of politics. His supporters might say otherwise, but it won't be true. And if we start letting crimes go unpunished because of fear of partisan rhetoric, where are we as a country? They've won at that point. 4965

[Sage Rat]

ETA: Nevermind. 4966

[iiandyiiii]

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/sta...04810020532224

51% say Trump should be impeached AND removed.

70% (!!!) say that Trump's actions re: Ukraine were wrong. 4967

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. Biden appears to be going senile, and Trump would crush him in debates. And if you type "creepy Uncle Joe" into youtube, you will find numerous videos which can be turned into campaign commercials to broadcast in October 2020. On top of that Biden is an old white male, which is used to disparage Republican candidates all the time.

So in his great unmatched wisdom he decided to extort Ukraine to dig up or make up dirt on Biden so that the easiest candidate to beat would be denied the nomination? Is there an alternate universe where that makes sense? 4968

[Left Hand of Dorkness]

12th dimensional chess, my droogies. 4969

[Jim Peebles]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

So in his great unmatched wisdom he decided to extort Ukraine to dig up or make up dirt on Biden so that the easiest candidate to beat would be denied the nomination? Is there an alternate universe where that makes sense?

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption. 4970

[Running with Scissors]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption.

Right, because:

1. The only corruption going on in Ukraine is the already-debunked conspiracy theory regarding Biden. Any other corruption within Ukraine is unimportant
2. The most appropriate way for a president to contend with corruption in another country is to withhold funds that were already approved, and replace an ambassador with one loyal to the president, rather than, say, using his own intelligence services
3. The lack of mention of corruption in the July 25 call was that, uh, he forgot?
4. Similarly, the White House didn't perform their own corruption review of Ukraine because they were, too busy, I guess?

4971

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption.

I certainly am glad I went to the bathroom before reading this, else I would have peed all over the place laughing when I read it. Seriously, Dolt45 cares not a whit about Ukraine, he believes all the lies that Putin tells him about Ukraine, and he doesn't give a flying fuck about corruption anywhere. People who carry the water for despots around the world generally aren't those who lead fights against corruption.

Looks like a fun week ahead, more open testimony, more ridiculous Republican posturing in order to please their audience of one. Most every day this month has been like Christmas morning with new wonderful surprises. 4972

[Baboonanza]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption.

Or he could just be incompetent.

And how does the idea of Trump fighting corruption have any credence to begin with? It's like hearing 'Cattle farmers are against steak dinners' or 'Saudi Arabia fights for women's rights'. It's obviously nonsense. 4973

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by BobLibDem

Looks like a fun week ahead, more open testimony, more ridiculous Republican posturing in order to please their audience of one.

And Trump taking to Twitter to talk testifying. 4974

[GIGObuster]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption.

The corruption bit is nonsense for several reasons but 2 pop up right away, remember that silly "defense" about no mentioning of 'quid pro quo' in the call? There was actually no mention of fighting corruption in the call.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/4/208990...-china-scandal

But the memo about the fateful July phone call between Trump and the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky that the White House released last week also indicates Trump’s new talking point is nonsense.

During that call, the word “corruption” was never uttered. Instead, Trump suggested military aid to the country was contingent on Zelensky doing him a “favor,” and he then brought up his desire to see investigations opened into the Bidens and the origins of the Mueller investigation.

And then, expecting a corrupt fellow to fight corruption is to expect an arsonist to become a good firefighter.

https://www.vox.com/2019/10/4/208990...-china-scandal

“I don’t care about Biden’s campaign, but I do care about corruption,” Trump told reporters outside the White House Friday. “I believe there was tremendous corruption with Biden ... we are looking at corruption, we are not looking at politics.”

Trump went as far as to insist “this is about corruption” or a close variant of that statement six times in less than 40 seconds.

But all it took was one question from CNBC’s Eamon Javers to destroy his talking point.

“Have you asked foreign leaders for any corruption investigations that don’t involve your political opponents?” Javers asked.

The answer, it quickly became apparent, was no — even if Trump didn’t want to admit it.

“You know, we would have to look, but I tell you — what I ask for, and what I always will ask for, is anything having to do with corruption with respect to our country,” Trump said, dissembling. “If a foreign country can help us with respect to corruption, and corruption probes — I don’t care if it’s Biden or anybody else.”

As the scandal has escalated over the past week, Trump has rolled out a number of other defenses of his conduct, including that his 2016 win means he can do what he wants, Democrats are really to blame, and dismissing the whole scandal as a mere politically motivated “witch hunt.”

But Trump’s insistence on Friday that he’s really just concerned about corruption is especially hard to buy. Trump is arguably the most personally corrupt president in the history of the United States — he broke decades of precedent by refusing to divest from his private businesses and as a result is being enriched by foreign governments while he’s in office — and as such the notion that he’s suddenly become a principled anti-corruption crusader is absurd on its face.

“You know, we would have to look, but I tell you"...

Trump speak equivalent to his promise to produce his tax returns, fighting corruption was not the reason for his Ukraine affairs. 4975

[rock party]

Don't forget, what was important to Trump wasn't corruption, it was the Ukrainian president announcing PUBLICLY investigations into Biden and Burisma. They even suggested he do it on CNN (because, you know, if they announced the investigation on FOX it might look?...biased?) 4976

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/sta...04810020532224

51% say Trump should be impeached AND removed.

70% (!!!) say that Trump's actions re: Ukraine were wrong.

6% also say Trump should be impeached but not removed. 4977

[elucidator]

There must be some number who actually believe that a thorough impeachment investigation will totally exonerate. 4978

[Skywatcher]

Originally Posted by elucidator

There must be some number who actually believe that a thorough impeachment investigation will totally exonerate.

There will always be that ~25% who believe he never does anything wrong. 4979

[Defensive Indifference]

The House is now investigating whether Trump lied to Mueller.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/18/p...mpression=true

This seems like a notable development. 4980

[Fiveyearlurker]

Stepping back, one has to realize that the Republican version of events requires me to believe that the singular issue that Donald Trump is concerned about for non-personal reasons is corruption in Ukraine. And that all the people testifying (many from his own administration) that his concern about corruption in Ukraine being personally motivated are wrong or lying. And that he hid the evidence and won't allow witnesses about his discussions about corruption in Ukraine because reasons unknown.

Look, I can buy the argument that this was wrong but not impeachable, though I disagree with that strongly. But, we are well past the point of believing that the Republicans disagreeing that this was wrong are making good faith arguments about what happened. 4981

[elucidator]

Shit fire, what the hell is impeachable? Reagan sold weapons to Iran to support people who was directly told not to, GeeDubya lied us into a futile and expensive war. But a blowjob? Well, that's right out! 4982

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption.

Biden is the chosen candidate of Never-Trumpers so he has all of the Democrats and some of the genuine hardcore Republicans and, in general, he is the preferred and most likely candidate to go up against Trump - particularly if we are talking about what the numbers would say at the time period during which the events unfolded as opposed to right now and particularly if we use actual polling data rather than a subjective opinion of who is and isn't easy to beat. 4983

[Walken After Midnight]

Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference

The House is now investigating whether Trump lied to Mueller.

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/11/18/p...mpression=true

This seems like a notable development.

From the article:

The House's arguments Monday draw new focus to whether Trump had lied to Mueller following public revelations at Roger Stone's trial this month.

Former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates testified that Trump and Stone talked about information that was coming that could help the campaign in mid-2016, at a time when Stone was attempting to get secret details about stolen Democratic documents WikiLeaks had.

Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort also apparently told the Mueller grand jury what Trump's approach to WikiLeaks had been in 2016, according to the Mueller report.

But Trump told Mueller in his written statements he didn't recall discussing WikiLeaks with Stone.

Trump in 2017: I have “one of the great memories of all-time'” 4984

[Kobal2]

Originally Posted by elucidator

Shit fire, what the hell is impeachable? Reagan sold weapons to Iran to support people who was directly told not to, GeeDubya lied us into a futile and expensive war. But a blowjob? Well, that's right out!

Now, now, you're being unfair and quite obviously partisan. I for one see the principled Republican side of this. He got impeached, not for improper sexual conduct or marital infidelity (that would have been silly), but for saying he didn't get the blowie, when he in fact did. And that's quite obviously of national import.
After all, if the President can lie about such a thing, there's simply no telling what else he might be lying about ; and if there's anything that simply can not be supported by anyone regardless of political affiliation, it is a President who is not explicitly truthful at all times and about any topic, no matter how intimate or personal ; and no matter where their individual self-interest lies or drives them. Presidenting is about national trust and utmost integrity, ultimately. 4985

[Buck Godot]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Exactly! It would not make sense for Trump to knock the easiest candidate to beat out before the Democrat primaries. Therefore, Trump's mention of Biden in the call was not for his own political gain. It was part of his effort to fight corruption.

Your final sentence is missing a word, must be a typo. It should have read.

It was part of his effort to fight for corruption.

Lets us concentrate on what I call the tale of two firings.

On the one hand you have Biden firing Shokin, on the other side you have Trump firing Yovanovitch.

Shokin Firing:

Hunter Biden joined the board of the company after the case had already been closed. While he was prosecutor, Shokin showed no interest in prosecuting Bursima or any other company for corruption. This why Shokin was widely recognized as a corrupt prosecutor. It is why everyone in the state department was in favor of his removal as well as a number of our European allies, and it is why Guiliani/Trump wants him back in his old seat. Had Biden actually wanted to shield Bursima from investigation, he probably would have been better off acting against his own state department to keep Shokin on in exchange for Shokin continuing to do what he had been doing all along.

Yovanovitch:

Yaqvonivich is recognized as an exemplary state department employee. Even the Republicans in the impeachment hearings couldn't seem to praise her enough. No explanation has been given for her firing except that she was "bad news", that she opposed reinstating the highly corrupt Shokin and that she may have preferred the previous Ukrainian president to one whose sole qualification is that he played a president on TV. The sole evidence of this is the word of our CIC who tells an average of 13.5 lies a day. 4986

[Ike Witt]

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

And Trump taking to Twitter to talk testifying.

Oh please. Oh please. Oh please. Oh please. Oh please. 4987

[Wolf333]

Originally Posted by Jim Peebles

Yes I do. In fact, I think Trump would prefer to run against Biden over all the other Democrat contenders. Biden appears to be going senile, and Trump would crush him in debates. And if you type "creepy Uncle Joe" into youtube, you will find numerous videos which can be turned into campaign commercials to broadcast in October 2020. On top of that Biden is an old white male, which is used to disparage Republican candidates all the time.

Let me know when Biden talks about his daughter’s Rita’s in an interview, brags about barging into a beauty pageant dressing room, and talks about how we took the airports during the revolutionary war. 4988

[Walken After Midnight]

Reminder of Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions:

Response to Question l, Parts (a) through (c)
“I have no recollection...”

Response to Question I, Part (d)
“I have no independent recollection...”

Response to Question I, Part (e)
“I have no independent recollection...”

Response to Question I, Part (t)
“I do not recall...”

Response to Question I, Part (g)
“...In the course of preparing to respond to your questions, I have become aware...”

Response to Question I, Part (h)
“I have no recollection...”

Response to Question I, Part (i)
“I have no recollection...”

Response to Question II, Part (a)
“I do not remember...”

Response to Question U, Part (b)
“...I have no recollection...”

Response to Question II, Part (c)
“I do not recall being aware...”

Response to Question II, Part (d)
“I do not recall having any discussion...I have no recollection...”

Response to Question II, Part (e)
“...I have no recollection...”

Response to Question II, Part (f)
“I do not recall...”

Response to Question ll, Part (g)
“I have no recollection...”

Response to Question II, Part (h)
“I do not recall...”

Response to Question II, Part (i)
“I do not recall...[conversations] were not memorable...I do not recall...I do not remember...I do not recall...”

Response to Question IV, Parts (a) through (d)
“I do not remember...I do not remember...”

Response to Question IV, Part (e)
“I do not recall...”

Response to Question IV, Part (t)
“I have no recollection...”

Response to Question V, Part (a)
“I do not remember...”

4989

[zoog]

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

And Trump taking to Twitter to talk testifying.

If this happens, put it on pay-per-view. Seriously, I'd pay good money to watch this. 4990

[Wolf333]

Originally Posted by Wolf333

Let me know when Biden talks about his daughter’s Rita’s in an interview, brags about barging into a beauty pageant dressing room, and talks about how we took the airports during the revolutionary war.

That should be daughter’s ass. 4991

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Wolf333

That should be daughter’s ass.

That is a very intriguing auto-correct. 4992

[JKellyMap]

Originally Posted by ThelmaLou

That is a very intriguing auto-correct.

Now I know what the Beatles song “Lovely Rita” is about!

Sorry, I shouldn’t be such a ritahole. 4993

[BobLibDem]

Originally Posted by Wolf333

That should be daughter’s ass.

I'm sure sure the evangelicals would say that Donald is just peachy because the Bible says don't covet your neighbor's ass, it didn't say anything about your daughter's ass. 4994

[drad dog]

Originally Posted by Walken After Midnight

Reminder of Trump's written responses to Mueller's questions:

In defense of dt it must be said that none of these answers were accompanied by him doing impressions of a handicapped person. They were in writing but still, give credit where it's due. 4995

[Gyrate]

Didn't he say he had the best memory?

It should also be pointed out to him that Crooked Hillary spoke under oath in front of a Congressional investigative committee for 11 hours in one day and managed not to perjure herself, yet he couldn't manage a single minute under oath during the Mueller enquiry for fear of perjuring himself. 4996

[Sage Rat]

Originally Posted by drad dog

In defense of dt it must be said that none of these answers were accompanied by him doing impressions of a handicapped person. They were in writing but still, give credit where it's due.

I think we can confidently say that he did not write a single one of the answers. 4997

[Czarcasm]

It doesn't matter what the judge says about Trump's financial records-because they are NEVER going to be turned over. Is anyone here gullible enough to think the hold will be for just a few days or weeks? 4998

[ThelmaLou]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

It doesn't matter what the judge says about Trump's financial records-because they are NEVER going to be turned over. Is anyone here gullible enough to think the hold will be for just a few days or weeks?

You are correct. It will never happen.

And he will never testify before Congress or anywhere else, except maybe at his own criminal trail (someday). 4999

[tripthicket]

If 45 were called to testify, I imagine he'd fight it all the way to the SC. Would it benefit the inquiry in any way to call him, aside from the notion of fairness? Also, I haven't seen it discussed, but isn't 45's direct testimony almost inevitable? I mean, the inquiry wouldn't close without him being given a chance to tell his side, no? Not a thousand Republican obfuscators, but him. 5000