Skip to main content

Transcript for Podcast: "I Feel Snitty," Episode 201: "Can You Hear Me Now? Part 5" is now available!

Podcast: I Feel Snitty

Episode 201: Can You Hear Me Now? Part 5

Premiere Date: 6/28/2022

Length: 8:26 (1,290 words)

Link: https://ifeelsnitty.podbean.com/e/can-you-hear-me-now-part-5/

Transcript: 

Welcome to I Feel Snitty, episode 201, entitled, “Can You Hear Me Now? Part 5.” I’m your host, Craig Rozniecki.

 

Well, if session #4 was the most emotional of the hearings thus far, session #5 was the most informative. Former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen, his deputy Richard Donoghue, and former leader of the DOJ’s (Department of Justice) Office of Legal Counsel – Steven Engel, never held back in their testimonies. They were thorough and blunt, which was honestly kind of refreshing.

 

Here are my takeaways from the hearing:

1)    We Don’t Need No Reputation: For as much as Donald Trump talked about wanting to make America great again, he sure as hell never cared about its reputation. No matter the institution, the history, or the level of truthfulness, Donald Trump was ready to sacrifice it in order to stay in power. As we heard in the 4th hearing, he went after state officials and election workers, but he didn’t stop there. As the 5th hearing painfully showcased, he then went after the DOJ (Department of Justice). It even reached the point where he told the DOJ, “Just say it [the election] was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” The DOJ didn’t play along, of course, but just think about what he was asking of the department. If, IF the DOJ had caved into Trump’s wishes, it would have tarnished the integrity of the department for the foreseeable future. That would have damaged the DOJ, the rest of the federal government, our elections, and our reputation both domestically and internationally. Who knows if we could have ever fully recovered from that.

2)    Pardon Me: Apparently six Congressional Republicans sought pardons from Donald Trump before he left office, for their roles in attempting to help overturn the 2020 presidential election. They were, in descending levels of douchiness: Matt Gaetz of Florida, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Andy Biggs of Arizona, and Scott Perry of Pennsylvania. Now, common-sense would dictate that one wouldn’t need to ask for a pardon if he or she didn’t do anything illegal. It’s not like I’d ever go up to a President and say, “Hey, dude, so, like, I brushed my teeth; shaved; took a shower; and ate Fruit Loops this morning. Can I have a pardon?” No, the only sensible reason to ask for a pardon is because you damn well know you did something wrong, potentially criminal, and want to get out of the mess you potentially got yourself into. Given this, it’s rational to conclude that the aforementioned Gaetz, Gohmert, Taylor Greene, Biggs, and Perry all committed crimes and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Oh, and they should resign.

3)    No Conspiracy Is Too Crazy: No matter how wild and nonsensical a conspiracy theory may have been, it worked for Donald Trump. Seriously. I thought I’d heard them all, but this hearing proved me wrong. Apparently, former Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller contacted a counterpart in Rome – yes, Italy, asking them to investigate a claim Trump had heard about Italian satellites changing votes from Trump to Biden. No, I’m not making this up. I wish I were, but alas…

4)    Loser and Clark: Like I mentioned earlier, Trump never cared about the truth; he just wanted someone, anyone to agree to push forth his version of the truth – which, of course, meant lies. After going the guess-and-check route with several officials, Trump found his man to lead the Justice Department – a lower-level DOJ environmental lawyer, who had absolutely no experience with elections. His name was Jeffrey Clark, and he wanted to send DOJ-signed letters to battleground states, which would have followed through with Trump’s wishes to lay claim that the election was corrupt. In response, the aforementioned Richard Donoghue allegedly told Clark, “You’re an environmental lawyer. How about you go back to your office, and we’ll call you when there’s an oil spill.”

 

Donald Trump never cared one iota about improving the state of the country. He knew full well he had lost the election, and unless something crazy happened – meaning illegal, he’d be out of the White House on January 20th of 2021. The guy was like an octopus gone wrong in a laboratory, as his tentacles multiplied 45-fold, latching onto any and every conspiracy theory within his grasp. Once one was shot down, he’d just present the next, and then attempt to latch onto something else. Fortunately, none of the conspiracies reached sea level, and he just had himself to grab, if he could ever find that tiny thing. As a result of all this, Donald Trump endangered the lives of state officials, election workers, and the United States of America.

 

Before I close this episode, I’d like to touch on something which happened shortly after the 4th hearing. Rusty Bowers – Arizona Speaker of the House – provided an emotional testimony in the 4th hearing, repeatedly saying he couldn’t go against his oath when asked to illegally help overturn the results in his state from the 2020 presidential election. He was frequently teary-eyed when giving his testimony, and was widely hailed as a hero for his bold defiance to corrupt authority post-election, as well as his seemingly heartfelt words. Well, as I recently said with regard to Mike Pence, let’s not give these guys too much credit.

 

When asked after his testimony who he’d vote for in 2024 if Trump were the GOP nominee, Bowers responded, “If he [Trump] is the nominee, if he was up against Biden, I’d vote for him again. Simply because what he did the first time, before COVID, was so good for the country. In my view it was great.”

 

Rusty Bowers didn’t betray the country nor the Constitution. In other words, he did his job without breaking the law. That doesn’t make him a hero. If that’s all it takes, most of us would be classified as such. Rusty Bowers just made it abundantly clear he would have been fine with Donald Trump cheating the country by essentially burning the Constitution en route to overturning a democratically-held election. He just didn’t want his name to be connected to it.

 

Donald Trump lied over 30,000 times to the country before COVID. Mr. Bowers, what are your thoughts on his presidency?

 

“In my view it was great.”

 

Donald Trump was alleged to have sexually harassed, assaulted, or raped dozens of women. Mr. Bowers, your thoughts?

 

“In my view it was great.”

 

Donald Trump conspired with our adversary, Russia; bribed our ally, Ukraine; knelt to Russian President Vladimir Putin; and was impeached for his efforts. Once again, Mr. Bowers?

 

“In my view it was great.”

 

Trump called Mexicans “rapists;” banned Muslims from entering the country; mocked the disabled; consistently stood up for white supremacists; incited hate-crimes; and exacerbated division in the country in the process. Mr. Bowers?

 

“In my view it was great.”

 

Due to Trump’s behavior and rhetoric, all countries outside of Russia and Israel thought less of the U.S. Bowers?

 

“In my view it was great.”

 

Even before COVID, Donald Trump was the worst president in U.S. history. He only cared about himself; was a puppet of Putin; had the brain of a comatose Stegosaurus; oh, and he tried to turn the United States into a shit-hole country by inciting a terrorist attack on our nation’s Capitol to reverse the results from a presidential election and destroy our republic in the process. Oh, but like Rusty Bowers said, “In my view it was great.” Idiot.

 

That’s it for today’s episode. Until next time, you can find me on Podbean, Amazon, Twitter, Facebook, 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!"