Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 30: "The GOP Puts the 'Liar' in 'Trial' (Part 3)," is now available!
Podcast: "I Feel Snitty"
Episode 30: The GOP Puts the "Liar" in "Trial" (Part 3)
Premiere Date: 2/1/20
Length: 10:01 (1,600 words)
Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-gop-puts-the-liar-in-trial-part-3/
Transcript:
Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 30, entitled, “The GOP Puts the ‘Liar’ in ‘Trial’ (Pt. 3).” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.
To my knowledge, this will be the final part of this impeachment-trial series. In part 1, I satirized the opening statements. In part 2, I satirized the question-and-answer session. Here in part 3, I will satirize the proceedings as if it were a criminal trial. Here we go…
Chief Justice Roberts: “Good morning and welcome. We’ll get started as soon as Professor Dershowitz stops pacing back and forth for no apparent reason. Are you finished? Okay. prosecution, you may now give your opening statement.”
Adam Schiff: “Thank you, your honor. I’ll begin by asking the jury this question: Why are we even here? No, this isn’t intended to provoke some deep drug-induced type of thought like that time you had a flashback to when you hid in a refrigerator during a game of hide-and-seek and you wondered if, due to how you felt at that time, it disproved global warming. But seriously, why are we even here? The defendant already admitted to abusing his power and obstructing Congress. He admitted this verbally, through tweets, and via a transcript he keeps telling us to read. Sometimes I wonder if he’s ever read it. He should really heed his own advice and read the transcript. Well, summary. Let’s not equate the two. This was not a complete transcript. It was a summary. If it were a book, it’d undoubtedly be titled, CliffsNotes: The Transcript to Undermine American Democracy. What was in this summary? In his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, after Zelensky mentioned the military aid Congress had already passed, Trump responded, and listen to this very closely. He said, ‘I’d like you to do us a favor, though,’ and then he goes on to talk about wanting the Ukrainian President to lead an investigation on Trump’s potential next opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden. ‘Though’ is much bigger than the 6-letter word it comes across as. He didn’t say, ‘Yeah, sure. Oh, by the way, and this has nothing to do with the military aid, but can you please do me a favor? It’s really important.’ No, he said, ‘Yeah, sure, but in order to get that military aid, you’re going to need to do me a favor. Capiche?!?’ That’s quid pro quo, this for that. Let’s compare this to the Bill Clinton impeachment. Monica Lewinsky didn’t walk into his office and say, ‘Excuse me, Mr. President, I’d like to talk to you,’ and then President Clinton said, ‘Sure, but I’d like you to do me a favor, though - suck my dick.’ No, they made eye contact and it just kind of happened, and you know, a lot of, ‘Oh, yeah, oh God, oh baby-cakes.’ What he did was wrong on both a moral and professional level, but it was consensual and there was no quid pro quo, especially one which could severely impact this country’s foundation. Donald Trump essentially bribed a foreign ally by withholding military aid to them - and remember, this was a nation at war with Russia - but he withheld military aid to them until they announced that they were running a phony investigation into Vice President Joe Biden. That was it. Mr. Trump didn’t even care about the investigation; he just wanted the announcement. So Mr. Trump can talk about wanting to combat corruption all he likes. If he is more concerned about an alleged anti-corruption announcement than he is about actually combating corruption, then he does not give one shit, let alone two about corruption. Members of his inner-circle have even echoed these sentiments - that he didn’t give a bleep about Ukraine. Ladies, if your husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, or what’s the new thing nowadays? Theyfriend? Whatever. If your partner - there we go - if your partner. I knew I’d get it right eventually. If your partner were cheating on you, what would be of greater import - that he announce to the world he’d stop cheating or for him to stop doing it? …and if he did announce he’d stop, but continued to cheat, wouldn’t that lead you to believe he just cared about his public perception and not about you? Donald Trump is that cheat. All he cares about is his public perception, but he cares nothing about this country, the United States of America. So, like I said, he abused his power. There can be no debating that. As for the second charge, obstruction of Congress, well, he’s guilty of that too. At every possible turn, he obstructed. He blocked documents; blocked witnesses; he even blocked me one time while I was trying to do some grocery shopping. I’ll never forget it. Aisle 3. As you know, he’s not the thinnest man in the world. I don’t mean to fat-shame, but just look at him. He says he’s trim, handsome, and sexy, but that’s not what the before-mentioned store told me in how he was able to block the entire aisle 3, as he faced me, with his arms to his sides. No matter how one tries to spin it, that’s obstruction. It’d be like in the previous scenario I discussed. Let’s say a wife, a female partner, excuse me, was suspicious her male partner was cheating, so she hired a private detective to find out for certain whether he was or not, but the male partner had to be notified about this prior to it going into action, and he prohibited the investigator from using a camera, smartphone, audio recorder, a vehicle, or even his eyes. Then, in the off-chance evidence was gathered by this gentleman, the male partner could then burn it in the fireplace. That’s what we have here with Donald John Trump. He’s a cheater, a liar, a traitor, and despite him attempting to rig the investigation, guilty.”
Roberts: “Defense, you may now make your opening statement.”
Dershowitz: “Our client, Donald John Trump, may be guilty of a lot of things, like: Adultery; fraud; money laundering; violating the emoluments clause; campaign finance violations; sexual assault; sexual harassment; rape; bribery; extortion; perjury; and knowing less about geography, math, English, or American history than a crash test dummy nicknamed Doomah. Oh, is that Dumbass? Okay, yeah, a crash test dummy named Dumbass. Where was I? He‘s guilty? No, no, he‘s not guilty. He‘s not guilty of whatever two charges he‘s facing today. Whatever these two charges are, he didn’t do it and we have proof somewhere in the clouds or whatever. Speaking of which, have you ever been in the clouds? I mean, not in an airplane, but like literally been in the clouds? I haven’t, but it’s always been a dream of mine. Some people have their bucket lists. I call this one my cumulonimbus list. Get it? So the charge that Donald Trump once obstructed some clouds is utterly ridiculous. He didn’t abuse these clouds either. How can a man abuse something which he’s never spoken to or touched? I’ve never spoken to nor touched a dodo bird named Jesus. Are you going to try and charge me with abusing and obstructing dodo birds named Jesus? That would be asinine. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let’s use our common sense. Does Donald John Trump even have the capability of touching a cloud or speaking to it face-to-cloud? He doesn’t, so he couldn’t abuse or obstruct it. The defense rests, your honor.”
Roberts: “Thank you. Prosecution, you may now call your first witness.”
Schiff: “Thank you, your honor.”
Roberts: “One moment. A juror has a question. Yes, Mr. McConnell…”
McConnell: “We, the jury, have voted to not allow witnesses, as they could potentially hurt the defense’s case.”
Roberts: “Very well. Motion granted.”
Schiff: “Excuse me, your honor. How can the jury vote on this? The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. How can we possibly do this if we are not allowed witnesses? …and did I hear that correctly? The jury is working with the defense? Why weren’t we allowed to vet and select our jurors?”
McConnell: “Sucks to be you.”
Schiff: “Your honor…”
Roberts: “Let’s cut it out. Prosecution, do you have any documents to present as evidence?”
Schiff: “Yes, we have buses full of it, your honor. We’ve been carrying in evidence for the past couple of hours and still have a couple more to go, I imagine.”
Roberts: “Hold that thought. Yes, Mr. McConnell…”
McConnell: “We the jury have voted against documents as well, your honor, for fear that they’ll harm the case of people with whom we have financial and political ties with - the defense.”
Roberts: “Motion granted.”
Schiff: “What the heck is going on here, your honor? How in God’s green earth is the jury and defense allowed to rig this trial? They have financial and political ties to one another and aren’t going to allow documents or witnesses?”
Roberts: “Excuse me, Mr. McConnell. Do you have another comment or question?”
McConnell: “Yes, if it makes the prosecution feel any better, most of us here on the jury feel you’ve already proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Schiff: “Well, that’s a relief.”
Roberts: “So has the jury reached a verdict?”
McConnell: “We have, your honor. Not guilty.”
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.
Episode 30: The GOP Puts the "Liar" in "Trial" (Part 3)
Premiere Date: 2/1/20
Length: 10:01 (1,600 words)
Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/the-gop-puts-the-liar-in-trial-part-3/
Transcript:
Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 30, entitled, “The GOP Puts the ‘Liar’ in ‘Trial’ (Pt. 3).” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.
To my knowledge, this will be the final part of this impeachment-trial series. In part 1, I satirized the opening statements. In part 2, I satirized the question-and-answer session. Here in part 3, I will satirize the proceedings as if it were a criminal trial. Here we go…
Chief Justice Roberts: “Good morning and welcome. We’ll get started as soon as Professor Dershowitz stops pacing back and forth for no apparent reason. Are you finished? Okay. prosecution, you may now give your opening statement.”
Adam Schiff: “Thank you, your honor. I’ll begin by asking the jury this question: Why are we even here? No, this isn’t intended to provoke some deep drug-induced type of thought like that time you had a flashback to when you hid in a refrigerator during a game of hide-and-seek and you wondered if, due to how you felt at that time, it disproved global warming. But seriously, why are we even here? The defendant already admitted to abusing his power and obstructing Congress. He admitted this verbally, through tweets, and via a transcript he keeps telling us to read. Sometimes I wonder if he’s ever read it. He should really heed his own advice and read the transcript. Well, summary. Let’s not equate the two. This was not a complete transcript. It was a summary. If it were a book, it’d undoubtedly be titled, CliffsNotes: The Transcript to Undermine American Democracy. What was in this summary? In his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky, after Zelensky mentioned the military aid Congress had already passed, Trump responded, and listen to this very closely. He said, ‘I’d like you to do us a favor, though,’ and then he goes on to talk about wanting the Ukrainian President to lead an investigation on Trump’s potential next opponent in the 2020 presidential election, Joe Biden. ‘Though’ is much bigger than the 6-letter word it comes across as. He didn’t say, ‘Yeah, sure. Oh, by the way, and this has nothing to do with the military aid, but can you please do me a favor? It’s really important.’ No, he said, ‘Yeah, sure, but in order to get that military aid, you’re going to need to do me a favor. Capiche?!?’ That’s quid pro quo, this for that. Let’s compare this to the Bill Clinton impeachment. Monica Lewinsky didn’t walk into his office and say, ‘Excuse me, Mr. President, I’d like to talk to you,’ and then President Clinton said, ‘Sure, but I’d like you to do me a favor, though - suck my dick.’ No, they made eye contact and it just kind of happened, and you know, a lot of, ‘Oh, yeah, oh God, oh baby-cakes.’ What he did was wrong on both a moral and professional level, but it was consensual and there was no quid pro quo, especially one which could severely impact this country’s foundation. Donald Trump essentially bribed a foreign ally by withholding military aid to them - and remember, this was a nation at war with Russia - but he withheld military aid to them until they announced that they were running a phony investigation into Vice President Joe Biden. That was it. Mr. Trump didn’t even care about the investigation; he just wanted the announcement. So Mr. Trump can talk about wanting to combat corruption all he likes. If he is more concerned about an alleged anti-corruption announcement than he is about actually combating corruption, then he does not give one shit, let alone two about corruption. Members of his inner-circle have even echoed these sentiments - that he didn’t give a bleep about Ukraine. Ladies, if your husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, or what’s the new thing nowadays? Theyfriend? Whatever. If your partner - there we go - if your partner. I knew I’d get it right eventually. If your partner were cheating on you, what would be of greater import - that he announce to the world he’d stop cheating or for him to stop doing it? …and if he did announce he’d stop, but continued to cheat, wouldn’t that lead you to believe he just cared about his public perception and not about you? Donald Trump is that cheat. All he cares about is his public perception, but he cares nothing about this country, the United States of America. So, like I said, he abused his power. There can be no debating that. As for the second charge, obstruction of Congress, well, he’s guilty of that too. At every possible turn, he obstructed. He blocked documents; blocked witnesses; he even blocked me one time while I was trying to do some grocery shopping. I’ll never forget it. Aisle 3. As you know, he’s not the thinnest man in the world. I don’t mean to fat-shame, but just look at him. He says he’s trim, handsome, and sexy, but that’s not what the before-mentioned store told me in how he was able to block the entire aisle 3, as he faced me, with his arms to his sides. No matter how one tries to spin it, that’s obstruction. It’d be like in the previous scenario I discussed. Let’s say a wife, a female partner, excuse me, was suspicious her male partner was cheating, so she hired a private detective to find out for certain whether he was or not, but the male partner had to be notified about this prior to it going into action, and he prohibited the investigator from using a camera, smartphone, audio recorder, a vehicle, or even his eyes. Then, in the off-chance evidence was gathered by this gentleman, the male partner could then burn it in the fireplace. That’s what we have here with Donald John Trump. He’s a cheater, a liar, a traitor, and despite him attempting to rig the investigation, guilty.”
Roberts: “Defense, you may now make your opening statement.”
Dershowitz: “Our client, Donald John Trump, may be guilty of a lot of things, like: Adultery; fraud; money laundering; violating the emoluments clause; campaign finance violations; sexual assault; sexual harassment; rape; bribery; extortion; perjury; and knowing less about geography, math, English, or American history than a crash test dummy nicknamed Doomah. Oh, is that Dumbass? Okay, yeah, a crash test dummy named Dumbass. Where was I? He‘s guilty? No, no, he‘s not guilty. He‘s not guilty of whatever two charges he‘s facing today. Whatever these two charges are, he didn’t do it and we have proof somewhere in the clouds or whatever. Speaking of which, have you ever been in the clouds? I mean, not in an airplane, but like literally been in the clouds? I haven’t, but it’s always been a dream of mine. Some people have their bucket lists. I call this one my cumulonimbus list. Get it? So the charge that Donald Trump once obstructed some clouds is utterly ridiculous. He didn’t abuse these clouds either. How can a man abuse something which he’s never spoken to or touched? I’ve never spoken to nor touched a dodo bird named Jesus. Are you going to try and charge me with abusing and obstructing dodo birds named Jesus? That would be asinine. So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, let’s use our common sense. Does Donald John Trump even have the capability of touching a cloud or speaking to it face-to-cloud? He doesn’t, so he couldn’t abuse or obstruct it. The defense rests, your honor.”
Roberts: “Thank you. Prosecution, you may now call your first witness.”
Schiff: “Thank you, your honor.”
Roberts: “One moment. A juror has a question. Yes, Mr. McConnell…”
McConnell: “We, the jury, have voted to not allow witnesses, as they could potentially hurt the defense’s case.”
Roberts: “Very well. Motion granted.”
Schiff: “Excuse me, your honor. How can the jury vote on this? The burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. How can we possibly do this if we are not allowed witnesses? …and did I hear that correctly? The jury is working with the defense? Why weren’t we allowed to vet and select our jurors?”
McConnell: “Sucks to be you.”
Schiff: “Your honor…”
Roberts: “Let’s cut it out. Prosecution, do you have any documents to present as evidence?”
Schiff: “Yes, we have buses full of it, your honor. We’ve been carrying in evidence for the past couple of hours and still have a couple more to go, I imagine.”
Roberts: “Hold that thought. Yes, Mr. McConnell…”
McConnell: “We the jury have voted against documents as well, your honor, for fear that they’ll harm the case of people with whom we have financial and political ties with - the defense.”
Roberts: “Motion granted.”
Schiff: “What the heck is going on here, your honor? How in God’s green earth is the jury and defense allowed to rig this trial? They have financial and political ties to one another and aren’t going to allow documents or witnesses?”
Roberts: “Excuse me, Mr. McConnell. Do you have another comment or question?”
McConnell: “Yes, if it makes the prosecution feel any better, most of us here on the jury feel you’ve already proven the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Schiff: “Well, that’s a relief.”
Roberts: “So has the jury reached a verdict?”
McConnell: “We have, your honor. Not guilty.”
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
Post a Comment