Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 23: "Defending the Indefensible"

Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"

Episode 23: "Defending the Indefensible"

Premiere Date: 12/17/19

Length: 21:53 (3,596 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/defending-the-indefensible-1576642909/

Transcript:

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 23, entitled, “Defending the Indefensible.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

Last week, the House Judiciary Committee voted 23-17 in favor of sending two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump to the House floor this week. The two articles charge that Trump committed an abuse of power and an obstruction of Congress, and will likely be voted on tomorrow. If the Democratic-led House votes to impeach Trump, we’ll then move on to the Senate jury, where a two-thirds vote would be needed to remove Trump from office. As Republicans hold a 53-47 majority in the Senate, that’s highly unlikely, but since just a simple majority is needed for impeachment in the House and Democrats control that chamber of Congress, it is quite likely Donald Trump will become just the third president in US history to get impeached.

So did anyone, like me, spend hours on end watching the debate among members of the House Judiciary Committee? It went on so long, even Henry the VIII fell asleep while singing “Bottles of Beer on the Wall.” Now, if this had been debate class, this particular debate would have been over even before it started. That’s what happens when all the facts and evidence are on one side of the aisle, and they are on the Democrats’ side in this case. Hell, just follow Donald Trump’s advice and “read the transcript,” where he essentially bribes a foreign leader. It’s all there in writing. No only is it in writing, but he’s repeated the bribe verbally. It’s not like he’s shied away from what he’s done here. For some strange reason, though, it’s his mindset that if a person commits a crime out in the open, it isn’t a crime. As Seth Meyers and Amy Poehler would say, “Really? I mean, really? Seriously, really?” If a person shot another on 5th Avenue while having a friend record him over his smartphone, it’s still a crime. It was just simply committed by an extraordinarily stupid criminal. Having said all that, I really had it to hand it to Republican members of the House Judiciary Committee last week, for they…tried really hard. I mean, when you’re literally surrounded by evidence which runs contrary to your argument and you still come forth time and time again with counterarguments? That takes some special cajones right there.

In case you don’t believe me or weren’t there, with your masochistic tendencies, to witness the migraine-inducing debate last week, I’m going to run down a list of GOP arguments that were put forth, before dissecting them in the snarkiest way possible.

Argument #1: The Process is Like, So Unfair
This was probably the GOPers’ favorite argument. Forget substance, the real crime was in how Democrats conducted the hearings. Trump was allowed to speak. He rejected the invitation. Key witnesses weren’t permitted to testify. Oh, you mean the ones Donald forbade from testifying? Things are moving too fast. I’m sorry, but this debate itself proved otherwise. Let’s face it, the only time a person complains about process is when the facts aren’t on their side. That’d be like the before-mentioned individual shooting someone on 5th Avenue while being recorded by a friend, getting arrested, and then complaining, “Officer, you really shouldn’t have read me my Miranda rights twice. That’s almost criminal. I’ll see you in court, buddy!”

Argument #2: That One Guy Did That One Thing That One Time
Republicans made certain to let the public know there’s no such thing as a perfect president. Even Reagan screwed up a time or a thousand. …and don’t even get them started on Obama… Okay, if we want to take this general approach, I suppose they’re right. Humans are imperfect. Presidents, from what we know, have been humans. Therefore, via the transitive property, presidents are imperfect. Okay, I’m glad we got that cleared up. In all seriousness, though, all of the comparisons to Trump’s wrongdoings are so off, they don’t even qualify as apples-and-oranges. No, they’re so incomparable, it’d be more accurate to label them as apples and McRibs. Sure, every president has made mistakes, but until now no president had ever bribed a foreign leader to rig a future presidential election. That’d be like Trump getting charged with murder, there being a video of him asking the cameraperson to zoom in on his face, before shouting out, “I’m Donald Trump and I just killed this guy,” and his attorneys telling the jury, “Yeah, but Obama once looked at a guy funny, so I mean, same thing.” No, it’s not actually. Not even close.

Argument #3: You’re Trying to Undo What’s Already Been Done
GOP members of the committee also made the argument, “What Democrats are trying to do is steal the vote away from 63 million Americans.” That number, of course, is the approximate number of votes Donald Trump allegedly received in the 2016 election. I say “allegedly,” because, well, Russia. In any case, that election is over. This impeachment has zero to do with the 2016 election. Trump already rigged that election. It’s over and done with, and sadly, there’s nothing we can do about it. So these two articles of impeachment have absolutely nothing to do with the 2016 results. What they center around is Trump’s attempt to rig the 2020 election. This is essentially a crime in progress. That’s why Democrats are acting with a sense of urgency. It’s like Donald Trump told a person on television he’d provide the guy with a taco bowl from Trump Tower, like he had already promised, only if this gentleman kills the host of the main competition to The Apprentice. …and even though the murder has yet to take place, Trump is continuing to try and find accomplices to follow through with the deed, all the while his employees and advertisers are saying, “Well, no one was actually killed, so it’s as if nothing happened.” Psst, attempt to commit murder is also a crime, with penalties of up to life in prison. If a guy is attempting to rob a bank, the police catch him in the act, he drops the money and says, “Well, technically, I didn’t steal any money, so no crime was committed,” yeah, best of luck with that…

Argument #4: Russia Meddling Is Just Like Your Factual Opinion, Man
Also on the list was Republicans trying to pass along the debunked conspiracy theory of it being Ukraine, not Russia behind the 2016 election meddling. What did this have to do with the articles of impeachment? Nothing really. I guess the GOP wants to link the debunked conspiracy theory of Joe Biden’s misconduct with regard to Ukraine to the debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine was the prime force behind meddling in our election three years ago. GOPers would say, “Well leaders of Ukraine said they were pulling for Hillary.” So what? Most world leaders were pulling for an intelligent, experienced politician over a bankruptcy-prone conman. Three million more Americans voted for Secretary Clinton over Trump. Does this mean we should all be investigated for meddling in the 2016 election? No, of course not. Just face the facts - Donald Trump is less popular than the clown from It performing a root canal on a person while the song “Barbie Girl” is playing on repeat. This whole Ukraine nonsense is such a nothing-burger, even actual nothing-burgers are offended.

Argument #5: Crime Isn’t Crime
While a couple of Republicans on the committee pointed out the fact crimes and impeachable offenses are not interchangeable, that wasn’t the case for a large majority of them. Just because an act can legally be constituted as a crime, doesn’t make it an impeachable offense, and just because an act can be constituted as an impeachable offense, doesn’t necessarily make it a crime. No matter those semantics, however, the fact of the matter is the Constitution is the law of the land, and Donald Trump violated said law, as he would put it, “bigly.” Of what point are Independence Day, the Pledge of Allegiance, the Star-Spangled Banner, constantly sending out troops in harm’s way, and trying to spread democracy abroad if we can’t accurately ascertain that Americans have the right to vote and our votes decide our elections? If you truly believe in democracy, you can’t shrug your shoulders at the concept of foreign interference in our elections, regardless of whom it benefits. If you do, then good luck being taken seriously when you boo people kneeling during the anthem. “How dare you disrespect our troops by kneeling during our national anthem! What’s that? Do I believe in fair elections? No, of course not. What the hell is wrong with you? Go Russia! U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A.!”

Argument #6: If You Say You Don’t Bribe, You Lie
The ol’ everyone-does-it excuse. While it’s true quid pro quo is a very common tactic in the political world, that doesn’t make all forms of it equal. There’s a stark difference between a quid pro quo where the country’s interests are front and center and one where one’s personal interests are. That’s where Trump really got himself into trouble. He was in the latter group. He can repeat himself ad nauseum that he was solely focused on Ukrainian corruption when bribing President Zelensky to dig up dirt on his potential 2020 opponent, Joe Biden, but he would be full of malarkey. First of all, that “dirt,” as it’s been called, has been debunked. In other words, there was no dirt. So how can digging up dirt which has been reported isn’t there countless times be at all beneficial to our country? Many Trump officials knew there wasn’t any dirt. They just simply wanted Zelensky to announce the Biden investigation on television, so it’d get people talking, much like the Clinton emails. This would likely lead to increasing divisiveness on Biden, and if he became the Democratic nominee, possibly lead more voters to stay home, instead of voting for either candidate, neither of whom they liked. Sound familiar? Yeah, that’s nearly the same exact strategy which was imposed in 2016. So, once again, how would this faux investigation of a debunked conspiracy help this country in any sense? Simple, it wouldn’t. This was all about Trump’s reelection. If you don’t believe me, I’ve got a bridge to nowhere to sell you. Check that, Sarah Palin does.

Argument #7: All We’ve Heard Is Hearsay
This was another popular line of attack by GOPers. “All Democrats have is hearsay! Hearsay! Hearsay! Hearsay!” Eh, did they read the transcript? Did they hear Trump’s comments after said transcript was released? Did they hear Mick Mulvaney’s defense? When a president admits to a crime, both in written and spoken form, and several witnesses basically testify, “Yeah, what he said,” it’s not hearsay. If a guy releases a transcript where he admits to brutally assaulting a homeless person and witnesses confirm what was said in the transcript, this guy’s buddies can’t just say, “Well, you know, his confession and the confirmation of his confession are just examples of hearsay.” When you hear a person actually say they committed a crime, it’s not hearsay.

Argument #8: The Root of All Evil Is the Thesaurus
One of the more unintentionally humorous arguments posed by Republican members of the committee was when they charged the Democrats with changing the name of the crime because they couldn’t ultimately decide on what crime had been committed. They said, “First it was quid pro quo. Then it was bribery. Now it’s extortion.” Yeah, they’re called synonyms. That’d be like if GOPers defended fellow Republican Ted Bundy by saying, “Democrats just can’t seem to make up their minds on what crime this guy committed. First it was mass homicide. Then it was mass killings. Now it’s mass murders. That’s just sad and pathetic!” Indeed it is…

Argument #9: You can’t spell “evidence” without “paper thin”
Okay, so technically you can, but don’t tell GOP House members that… You know, just because the opposition says there’s no evidence doesn’t mean that’s actually the case. If this were a murder trial, Democrats would have showcased the murder weapon, the defendant’s finger prints on said murder weapon, both a video and written confession by the defendant, and the defense attorneys would still declare, “But your honor, and ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is paper thin evidence.” Yeah, sure if this paper was War & Peace.

Argument #10: The STATE of Bullshit is DEEP
Multiple GOP House Judiciary Committee members also brought up the so-called “deep state,” certified Texas loon, Louie Gohmert, in particular. It’s a vast conspiracy, folks, the vastest of all conspiracies known to man. All of the Trump-appointed witnesses were in on setting Trump up from the beginning. All of his friends and coworkers who he had known and befriended for years upon years, they knew a long time ago he’d go from host of a reality show to President of the United States, and they wanted to make sure of it he’d go down after being inaugurated. Bob Mueller? Veteran and Republican? Yeah, he’s with them. Colonel Vindman? He’s with them too. Staunch ex-Trump supporters? They were only faking their support for him, in order to be viewed as more credible when they came forward calling for his impeachment. Yup, hundreds, if not thousands of people were all in on it - the greatest hoax of all time, making certain Trump won a presidential election, only to make certain he got impeached. It was almost too easy… Okay, so that’s one possibility. The other is one lazy, ignorant, insecure, corrupt narcissist was in fact guilty of the crimes with which he’s alleged. One man being guilty or hundreds to thousands of people conspiring to make certain he’s guilty. Tough call. I’ll have to phone my friend Occam’s Razor for their input…

Argument #11: Nobody Gives an Honest Testimony Like a Threatened Witness
Apparently, since both Presidents Trump and Zelensky said there was no pressure placed on the latter by the former to dig up dirt on Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in exchange for military aid, that means there was no quid pro quo. Right… That reminds me of a time a person was being held up at gunpoint, upon receiving a call, said nothing was wrong, so we could all rest assured there was absolutely nothing wrong…

Argument #12: A One-Term President Since Day 1
“Since day 1, they even said it was their goal to make him a one-term president.” Oh, sorry, that’s what Mitch McConnell and Republicans said about then President Obama. Now, Congressional GOPers are saying Democrats have wanted to impeach Trump ever since they garnered control of the House, so this quashes the legitimacy of their articles of impeachment. Okay, Republicans may have a point here. Democrats have wanted to impeach Donald Trump for about as long as I can remember, but it’s not like they can impeach him over nothing. They know damn well what the potential political repercussions of that would be. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi adamantly spoke out against the prospect of impeachment for longer than “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” held out on sex. So while Democrats may have wanted Trump removed from the White House, there’s no way in hell they were going to do it without a solid, easy-to-understand case, and lucky for them, Trump played right along. A person can hope and pray all they want for another to get convicted of a crime; nothing’s going to happen unless said individual actually commits a crime. So at the end of the day, the fact many Democrats wanted Trump impeached since the day he stepped into office is irrelevant. It’s not like a defense lawyer can say, “Your honor, the prosecutor wanted my client to go to jail for 25 years. What was that? Did he rape the two elephants? Yes, but that’s besides the point…”

Argument #13: You No Likey
“This is all about Democrats simply not liking the president.” This is a weak defense if I ever heard one. How many presidents in US history have been disliked by a majority of the opposing party? Just about all of them. How many have been impeached? Trump will be the 3rd. I mean, come on… Did Democrats like Ford, H.W., or W.? No, of course not. Yet were any of them impeached? No. You can’t impeach a president just due to personal dislike. Wait, what were the two articles of impeachment again? Abuse of the Eyes and Obstruction of Something, Anything, Just Get This Rotten Piece of Shit Out of the Oval? No, they were Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

Argument #14: We Showed Them the Money!
Another favorite argument used by Congressional Republicans has been the line that, at the end of the day, the U.S. did in fact provide Ukraine with the $391 million of military aid which had been approved by Congress. Again, attempted murder is still a crime. Just because the intended victim wasn’t actually killed doesn’t negate the fact a crime took place. Try stealing a car in front of a police officer sometime, and when confronted, say, “Officer, I swear I thought this was my car. The hanger? I left my keys at home. How did I get the car here in the first place? Good question. That’s a very good question. I’ll have to get back to you on that one.”

Argument #15: It’s Not Me, It’s Us
The GOP seriously wants us to believe Trump was only concerned about corruption in Ukraine. They keep pointing to a single word in the so-called transcript, saying, “Trump said, ’I’d like you to do US a favor, though,’ not ’I’d like you to do me a favor, though.’” Okay, then why in the so-called transcript was Biden mentioned on three occasions and corruption wasn’t mentioned once? Because it’s not about what you see; it’s about what you don’t see, right? Donald Trump’s personal attorney said he didn’t give one shit, let alone two about Ukraine. Even though Trump insiders knew the Biden investigation was nonsense, they still wanted President Zelensky to announce that the Bidens were being investigated. This had zero to do with our country’s security and everything to do with the 2020 election. Anyone who says otherwise doesn’t know their ass from their kidneys.

Given the ridiculous rationale (or lack there of) used by Republicans members of the House Judiciary Committee, I thought I’d attempt to make them sound even more loony with a top ten list. Here are the Top Ten Reasons Donald Trump Should NOT Be Impeached. That’s Top Ten Reasons He Should NOT Be Impeached.

10) Even after cheating, Trump won the election by a very impressive -3 million votes.

9) Comedians would be forced to start working again.

8) All those “2020 Putin America First” signs would go to waste.

7) When you’re drunk-tweeting at 3 in the morning, you know you’re not alone.

6) We could go on believing “Terminator” was a true foreshadowing of an obese, 73-year-old man, suffering from a condition known as Cheeto-Skin.

5) Laws suck, but never swallow.

4) Because no one wants another, what most Trumpsters would inevitably call, “Sybil War.”

3) He never said he wanted to bang both his daughters, just one.

2) We’d then be stuck with President Mike Pence and First Lady Mother.

1) (drumroll) Because only the realest, most patriotic of Americans fake bone-spurs to get out of serving in a war; inaccurately lip-sync the national anthem; get easily frightened by eagles; and molest flags like they were adult film stars named after weather patterns.

I’m now going to close the show with my Poll of the Week. Since I forgot to do this last week, I’ll include two polls this week.

The first poll asked the question, “What will Donald Trump do or say at his ‘Merry Christmas’ rally later this month?” It received 252 votes and here are the results:

1) Look at my elf over there. (62%)
2) Merry f-ing Christmas (19%)
3) Beat up Santa (13%)
4) Throw toilet paper rolls (7%)

Thanks to everyone who voted. Here now are some of my favorite comments regarding the poll:

- “Push the Toilet Act of 2019”
- “’Merry Collusion’”
- “Proclaim that orange is also a color for Christmas, with red and green.”
- “He’ll count the elves standing with Melania: elf, elf, elf, milf, elf.”

…and my favorite response came from Andrew Kornblatt, who wrote, “Say ‘Die Hard’ is the best American Christmas movie of all time. That tower, the Nakawatti Tower? Good tower, not as nice as my towers. I have the best towards.”

The question for the next poll was, “In light of Toilet Gate, what will Trump’s 2020 campaign slogan most likely be?” It received 248 votes and here are the results:

1) Shit Best (40%)
2) Make Diapers Great Again (31%)
3) Flushers Are Quitters (17%)
4) Toilets First (13%)

Here are some of my favorite comments:

- “MOTGA (Make Our Toilets Great Again)”
- “MAGA (Make America Go Again)”
- “Keep America Full of Shit”
- “All winners. Unlike him.”

…and my personal favorite was by Richard @RMPrendergast), who wrote, “We’ll have toilets that are the wettest anyone has ever seen, from the standpoint of water.”

That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, check me out on PodBean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogpsot. This has been I Feel Snitty with Craig Rozniecki. Take care.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"