Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 28: "The GOP Puts the 'Liar' in 'Trial' (Part 1)" is now available!

Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"

Episode 28: The GOP Puts the "Liar" in "Trial" (Part 1)

Premiere Date: 1/30/20

Length: 10:19 (1,618 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-gop-puts-the-liar-in-trial-part-1/

Transcript:

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 28, entitled, “The GOP Puts the ‘Liar’ in ‘Trial’ (Pt. 1).” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

I’m not going to pussyfoot around. This show, and at least one more, will fully revolve around the Donald Trump impeachment trial. In this episode, I will satirize the opening statements, particularly by the defense team, for it’ll be difficult to satirize the facts put forth by the House Managers. Here we go…

Chief Justice Roberts: “Senate Minority Leader Schumer, you are recognized.”

Chuck Schumer: “The people on the right side of history call House Manager Adam Schiff.”

Adam Schiff: “Thank you. 2 + 2 = 4. The defense will want you to believe it equals 5, 6, or in this case, 45. That’s ridiculous. Take your hands. Hold them out. Now raise two fingers on each hand and count them. Does that equal 4, 5, 6, or 45? Let’s think about this for a moment. We only have 10 fingers, which is 35 less than 45, so unless we possessed nine and a half hands, this would not be possible. Okay, so it’s either 4, 5, or 6. Count them. 1, 2, 3, 4, and full stop. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen. The answer is 4. That’s a fact. I bring this up because the case against Donald Trump is as easy as 2 + 2. The alleged Biden conspiracy started before President Trump entered office. He had a Republican majority in both the House and the Senate for two years. Two years. If this supposed Biden scandal was of such great importance, why didn’t he choose to investigate it then? Because there was no scandal. It wasn’t until Vice President Biden announced he’d be running for president and head-to-head polls showcased him comfortably ahead of Trump that the current president took an interest in it. Then, after Congress agreed to fund our ally Ukraine with military aid, President Trump decided to halt it. Just like that. He claims it’s because he wanted to fight corruption and Ukraine has historically been very corrupt. Really? Trump University. The Trump Organization. His golf scores. I suppose if Trump knows anything, it’s corruption, because he’s been front and center in a lot of it. So, as documents then showed, Donald Trump froze this military aid until Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky agreed to announce that an investigation was underway about Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Once the whistleblower blew someone’s whistle, Trump unfroze the aid. His defense will tell you, ‘Hey, Ukraine got the money, so no crime could have been committed.’ Really? First off, they have yet to receive all of the funds. Secondly, if a person robs a bank, police come on the scene, and the robber then hands the money back, will law enforcement let him get away with it if he says, ‘Hey, officers, look, I don’t have any of the money. I’m clean. It’s all good. Can I go now?” I don’t think so. In addition to all this, I’m getting a psychic reading that a leak from former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s new book will be published any day now, which will confirm that President Trump’s freeze of military aid to Ukraine was, without question, tied to investigating Vice President Biden. This was not for the benefit of our country. It was for the benefit of one man - Donald J. Trump. Not only that, but throughout the investigation, he obstructed. He made like the Commander-in-Chief Soup Nazi and continually said, ‘No testimony for you!’ He is guilty of abusing his power, of obstructing Congress, and needs to be removed from office to restore integrity to this great nation and make America America again.”

Roberts: “Senate Majority Leader McConnell, you are recognized.”

Mitch McConnell: “Yes, Chief Justice, we’d like to take a forever recess.”

Roberts: “Without objection? Okay, there are a few objections. Motion denied.”

McConnell: “How about a 50-year recess?”

Roberts: “Without objection? Still plenty of objections.”

McConnell: “A recess until November 3rd of this year?”

Roberts: “Without objection? Again, objections.”

McConnell: “How about a 24-hour lunch recess?”

Roberts: “People are already raising their hands in objection. Can we please get this show on the road, Senator?”

McConnell: “Very well. The defense calls Patrick Sippa, Sips, uh, Patrick Sipsomething.”

Patrick Cipollone: “Thank you. I’ll make this very brief. Donald Trump is not guilty. Thank you very much.”

Roberts: “Senate Majority Leader, you are again recognized.”

McConnell: “Thank you. The defense would like to request a 6-hour recess for naptime.”

Roberts: “Without objections? Ah, not this again. Senator, let’s keep this going.”

McConnell: “Okay. The defense calls Jay Sekulow.”

Jay Sekulow: “Thank you. I’m going to start off my presentation with a fact-check of Adam Schiff. He stated over and over again that two plus two equaled four like it’s some kind of fact. Well, he’s wrong. It doesn’t equal four, not every time. What about the times when it equals 5, 6, or 45? What about those times? You’re going to be passed a calculator by an intern I fornicated with, informed the president, and is the prime reason I‘m doing this in the first place, because you know, blackmail. Anyway, have you all received them? Enter 2 + 2. What do you come up with? Some 4s, some 5s, some 6s, and even some 45s, right? All 4s? These calculators must be rigged. We’ll get some new devices and try this again later. So, anyway, this proves 2 + 2 does not always equal 4, Mr. Schiff. Once again, the House Manager is mistaken. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, onto my own defense of the President of these United States of AmeriRussia. Democrats like to question the president’s motives, like him waiting until Joe Biden announced he was running for president had anything to do with him investigating the former Vice President several years after the fact. Look, I’m an attorney. If there’s a murder tomorrow, it’d be best to not investigate it until 2030, at the earliest. At the earliest. That’s just common sense. Also, a debunked conspiracy theory is the antithesis of a proven fact, so the two are closely linked. There’s a very fine line between a debunked conspiracy theory and a proven fact. So, I mean, even though the Biden deal was debunked, doesn’t that then mean it could also be proven fact? I think so. Lastly, let me just say: Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton. Barack Obama. Joe Biden. Hunter Biden. Saddam Hussein. Charles Manson. Osama bin Laden. Benghazi. Burisma. Her emails. Dossier. Pettifogging. I think I’ve proven my case.”

Roberts: “Senate Majority Leader, you are recognized.”

McConnell: “The defense would like to request a 2-hour recess to engage in a fidget-spinner competition.”

Roberts: “Without objections? As I figured, there are objections. Senate Majority leader, you know the drill.”

McConnell: “Do I? Ha. Ha. Ha. The defense calls Alan Dersh, Douche, Douchewitz.”

Alan Dershowitz: “Thank you. I’m going to go even further than Mr. Sekulow and say that, not only does 2 + 2 not always equal 4, I’m going to say there’s no such thing as math or numbers. Most attorneys disagree with me on this point and I admit that, but as my 13-year-old massage therapist once told me, ’To each their own. Speaking of your own, where did your underpants go?’ Anywho, where was I? Ah, yes, Jeffrey Epstein’s. I mean, okay, so like I said, from my very professional vantage point, numbers don’t exist, and in this respect, numbers are like laws, for they don’t exist either. This is why President Trump can’t break any law and can’t be above the law, for there are no laws. Again, I’m in the minority on this among my legal peers, but I feel it’s the honest to devil truth. Oh, and just to clear this up… A lot of House Managers have been bringing up how my opinion on impeachment differed 22 years ago. It didn’t really, though, not when you don’t think about it. Then I said a president didn’t have to commit a crime to be impeached. Today I’m saying he does, but that laws don’t exist, so he can’t. Everybody get it now? Good. I’m glad we got that all cleared up. Another point I want to make is none of us were alive at the time our founders wrote the Constitution, so how can any of us, with absolute certainty, say, ’Oh, this is what the founders meant?’ We can’t. Freedom of speech? Did that include tweets? Freedom of religion? What about the flying spaghetti monster? Freedom of the press? Did they envision the internets? The right to bear arms? Okay, that is the exception, for that can not be infringed. But you get my point. How can we crawl inside the mind of James Madison? Literally or figuratively? I mean, he wasn’t that big, was he? How are we to know what he meant by words like ’impeach,’ ’crimes,’ misdemeanors,’ or ’the?’ We don’t know. We can’t know. So no president should ever be impeached. The only exception is he gets a blowjob. The defense rests, your honor.”

Roberts: “Senate Majority Leader, you are recognized.”

McConnell: “The defense moves to journ, journey, adjourney till 1 pm tomorrow.”

Roberts: “Do you mean adjourn?”

McConnell: “Yeah, that.”

Roberts: “Without objections? Shit, who’s that person in the back? You have an objection? Oh, you were just stretching? Okay, so no objections? Adjourned!”

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!"