Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 114: "Trial & Terror" is now available!

Podcast: I Feel Snitty

Episode 114: Trial & Terror

Premiere Date: 2/19/21

Length: 9:43 (1,389 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/trial-terror/

Transcript: 

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 114, entitled, “Trial & Terror.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

 

It’s official: The only President in US history to have been impeached twice is now the only President to have been acquitted twice. After the House voted to impeach Donald Trump on the charge of inciting a riot by a count of 232 to 197, the Senate voted to acquit Trump, with 57 voting guilty and 43 voting not guilty – 10 guilty votes short of the two-thirds majority required to convict.

 

You know, it’s funny. Florida Senator Marco Rubio called this trial a “farce.” He was right, but not in the sense he meant. Think about it. The jury consisted of 100 Senators, 50 of which needed to undergo an operation over the course of the past 4 years, due to their lips being stuck to the rear-end of the defendant. Of these 50 jurors, a majority publicly declared that the defendant was innocent before the trial even started. After the trial did start, multiple members of the jury actually worked with the defense to help with their case. So, yes, it was a farce.

 

In case you missed this farce, I thought I’d satirize it for you. In this skit, I will be playing the parts of president pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Manager Joe Neguse, and defense attorney Michael Van Der Veen. …and action!

 

Leahy: “Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, the charge brought forth to you today is that Osama bin Laden incited the terrorist attacks on 9/11. Each side will get 14 minutes to prove their case. We’ll start with the prosecution. Mr. Goosey Goose, I mean Neguse, you may proceed.”

 

Neguse: “Thank you, your honor. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, look, you’ve seen the clip enough times. We won’t traumatize you by showing it to you again – except for this one last time. That was the last time; I swear. Shit. Okay, now let’s just look at the facts. Al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization. Osama bin Laden founded al-Qaeda. We have audio recordings of the defendant talking about planning the 9/11 attacks. We have evidence of him inciting the terrorism we all experienced on that awful, awful day – prompting ‘death to America’ chants.

 

This wasn’t bin Laden’s first trip to the terrorist rodeo either. After we – the greatest country in the history of the world – forced him out of Sudan in 1996, he declared war on us – the United States of America. He then involved himself in the 1998 US Embassy bombings.

 

So, again, let me briefly summarize who this man was:

- He founded the terrorist organization al-Qaeda

- He declared war on America

- He helped bomb the US Embassy in ‘98

- He said, on an audio tape, that he pre-planned the 9/11 attacks

- He incited terrorists to fly airplanes into our Twin Towers

- …and here’s the video of the attack. Once again, that is probably the last time we’ll show it to you until the next time. That I can promise you.

 

This is an open and shut case, folks. Bin Laden did it. We all know he did it. We have proof he did it. He even admitted he did it. Osama bin Laden is guilty and must be punished. If we find him not guilty, what kind of precedent does that set for the future? How can we assure the people feel safe when we don’t punish a terrorist like Osama bin Laden? This is America, dammit! We hold terrorists accountable! We send them to prison; we don’t make them president! When they strike us in the heart, we swing lower and punch them in the dick. Think about that. Yeah, right in the dick, bigly. The prosecution rests, your honor.”

 

Leahy: “Thank you, Mr. Neguse. The defense now has 14 minutes to rebut the prosecution’s case. Mr. Van Der Douche. Excuse me, Mr. Van Der Veen, the floor is yours.”

 

Van Der Veen: “Thank you, judge, and thank you to the prosecution for being so stupid. This was honestly the worst case of prosecutoring terrorists in all my years of working on car accidents. I mean that. It was complete crap. It smelled; didn’t flush real easy; and not even a plunger could keep it down. For lack of a better word, it was poopy – poopy crap. You can quote me on that.

 

Let’s take their case one r-word argument at a time.

 

#1) Well, isn’t that convenient?!?

My client wasn’t even in the airplanes which struck the Twin Towers, so how could he be a terrorist in the attacks? Hell, he wasn’t even in this country at the time of the attacks. Again, not on the planes? Not in the country? He couldn’t be the guy. How in the world could he have orchestrated an attack when he wasn’t even there? …and don’t give me all this gobbledygook about what he said before and after the attacks. That stuff doesn’t matter. It’s irrelevant. When one of them football coaches calls a play and then calls a play after that, neither of those calls matters when the only thing that matters is the play on the field in between them. The play-caller guy had absolutely nothing to do with that. It’s like the NRA says, ‘Guns don’t kill people; people kill people’ and ‘People don’t make plans; plans make themselves.’ Whether my client pre-planned the attack or confessed to the attack after the attack, he was not part of the attack, because he was not there for the attack. Period.

 

#2) Evidence isn’t evidence.

All of the so-called evidence the prosecution has bestowed upon you today has been 100% authentic, but here’s the kicker: They have used this evidence – the audio recordings, the videos, the verbatim quotes – as a means to persuade you that my client is guilty. This just isn’t right and isn’t fair. I don’t know if this is true or not, but it should be: The Constitution should have an amendment which guarantees that both the prosecution and defense have equally strong cases. If there’s any time to support socialism, this is it. That’s right; tweet it out: Michael Van Der Veen is an evidence socialist. Whatever.

 

#3) You want a First Amendment? I’ll give you a First Amendment!

People use words. People say words. People say they use words. People? Words? This happens all the time. So, so what if my client has said “death to America?” So what if he’s prompted others to chant those three aforementioned words repeatedly, while holding guns in the air? Does this mean he incited violence or made anyone angry? No, of course not.

 

This has the left-wing’s ‘cancel-culture’ written all over it. Look, you may not like what a person has to say or even how they say it, but this is America, dammit! We can say ‘death to America’ all we want and still be flag-waving, anthem-singing, red-white-and-blue-blooded, patriotic Americans!

 

What kind of precedence does it set if we punish a man who incites a terrorist attack with anti-American rhetoric? Allegedly incites. Alleged…

 

#4) An Oscar, please…

Now, to prove the prosecution’s defense is a bunch of hokum and they’re the e-pi-toe-me of hypocrites, here now is a video of them, their staff, their friends, their families, and their exes saying the word ‘death.’ Enjoy!

 

- ‘Till death do you part?’

- ‘Till death do us part.’

- ‘Death at a funeral.’

- ‘Death metal.’

- ‘OMG, I love you to death!”

- ‘A brush with death.’

- ‘What are you doing? I’m bored to death!’

- ‘Death Valley.’

- ‘Well, that’s been done to death.’

- ‘Give me liberty or give me death!’

- ‘Kiss of death.’

- ‘Life after death.’

- ‘Near death experience.’

- ‘Death row, fo’ sho’.’

- ‘I’m watching Hallmark with the lights off. I’m scared to death!’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death.’

- ‘Death to Smoochy.’

 

…and scene. The defense rests… Oh, wait…

 

#5) One more thing…

Antifa probably did it.

 

The defense rests, your honor.”

 

That’s it for today’s episode. I’ll see you again next week. Until then, you can check me out on Podbean, Twitter, Amazon, and Blogger. 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!"