Patterico's Pontifications


Trump: Will He Or Won’t He??

Filed under: General — Dana @ 12:21 pm

[guest post by Dana]

Nancy Pelosi tells President Trump to put his money where his mouth is:

Pushing back against accusations from the Republican president that the process has been stacked against him, Pelosi said Trump is welcome to appear or answer questions in writing, if he chooses.

“If he has information that is exculpatory, that means ex, taking away, culpable, blame, then we look forward to seeing it,” she said in an interview that aired Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” Trump “could come right before the committee and talk, speak all the truth that he wants if he wants,” she said.

This morning Trump responded with a decisive Hm, maybe I will…

Game on.

(Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.)


46 Responses to “Trump: Will He Or Won’t He??”

  1. I feel like he won’t be able to resist the temptation of being front and center before America, and having his say in the matter by repeating all of his accusations to their faces, while happily ignoring his advisers and lawyers.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  2. Trump should testify on two conditions:

    1) Pelosie asks the questions.
    2) He gets to interview Eric Ciaremella, the “Whistleblower”

    rcocean (1a839e)

  3. Since he hasn’t committed a crime, and will be impeached no matter what he does, I say go for it.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  4. Trump should testify on two conditions:

    1) Pelosie asks the questions.
    2) He gets to interview Eric Ciaremella, the “Whistleblower”

    3) If Trump agrees to be perp-walked onto the floor of the House in handcuffs and a bright orange jumpsuit that matches his skin, it’s a deal.

    Dave (1bb933)

  5. President Ford once testified before Congress.

    Yes, this would give him an opportunity to put all of his evidence against Biden (which goes to motive) before the country.

    Can he stick to the truth? (I don’t mean about Biden, where he has things incredibly wrong and doesn’t know what it is anyway)) but I mean about himself.

    And maybe we’ll get – maybe he can explain – who were the bad people in Ukraine (according to his information) whom Ambassador Marie Yovanovich was dealing with, and what were the bad things that were happening in 2019. Maybe he can submit a written statement from Giuliani. Or does Giuliani realize now that all, or much, of his information was no good, and not want to repeat it or publicize it?

    Sammy Finkelman (976d9e)

  6. Trump: I got at least 50 republican votes in the senate. so buzz off never trumpers!

    asset (114a69)

  7. I think if you were counseling Trump, you wouldn’t testify nor send any written responses and let the chips fall as they man.

    The *only* way you do so, is if you were in danger of losing support of your own party in order to get them back in the fold.

    Frankly, I hope he wouldn’t as I don’t think it’s a good faith effort.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  8. President Ford once testified before Congress.

    President Washington did too, if I recall.

    Can [Trump] stick to the truth?

    There’s a first time for everything!

    Dave (1bb933)

  9. Anyone noticed that Pelosi shifted the burden of proof on Trump?

    As if Pelosi knows (or subliminally) that they don’t have as strong of enough case as they’d like and want the spectacle of Trump testifying before Congress.

    whembly (fd57f6)

  10. 9. I don’t think Trump would do himself any favors by testifying. Of course, Trump knows best.

    Gryph (08c844)

  11. Whatever Trump says he is going to do -he won’t. I agree with Whembly aboutit not being a good faith effort.

    felipe (023cc9)

  12. RIP – Peter Collier – Berkeley grad, civil rights activist, co-author of Lefties For Reagan – Washington Post, 1985.

    Died earlier this month and just heard about it.

    harkin (337580)

  13. 11. I don’t think it’s quite that pat. Trump will do whatever he thinks will benefit “Trump,” the brand. And if he is wrong about what benefits him, he’ll find someone else to blame.

    Gryph (08c844)

  14. Anyone noticed that Pelosi shifted the burden of proof on Trump?


    President Snowflake tweeted about how mean everyone was being to him, and Pelosi said he was welcome to tell his side in person.

    There is no “burden of proof” on anyone until the Senate trial. The House’s role is similar to that of a grand jury.

    Dave (1bb933)

  15. Speaking of testimony, Volker may have to pull a Sondland and revise and extend his remarks.

    Paul Montagu (00daa1)

  16. All public officials, and not only corrupt criminal traitor New York sewer scum, should have the burden to prove their good behavior while wallowing in the public trough. If they don’t like that, they can learn to code. This isn’t a criminal prosecution (that will come later). It’s a job evaluation.

    nk (dbc370)

  17. 12. Peter Collier died Friday, November 1 – the New York Times ran his obituary in he Sunday, November 10, 2019 paper.

    It lists a lot of books.

    Here is a Wall Street Journal Op-ed article memorializing him by Roger Kimball that describes his career: ( a fuller version of whc=ich appears in the December issue of the New Criterion.

    Sammy Finkelman (976d9e)

  18. All public officials, and not only corrupt criminal traitor New York sewer scum, should have the burden to prove their good behavior while wallowing in the public trough. If they don’t like that, they can learn to code.

    God, yes.

    Dana (cb74ca)

  19. He’s not going to testify.
    Not because he knows he’d lie.
    But because he couldn’t stand the visuals.

    Time123 (d54166)

  20. Sand pounders.

    mg (ebf6c2)

  21. Meh. He’s chumming the Tuna.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  22. What happens if the hearings end in a muddle? Do they impeach anyway, with one charge of “Because!”?

    Kevin M (19357e)

  23. This is all Rince Priebus’ fault. All of it.

    Kevin M (19357e)

  24. 22. It’s really simple: If half of the House votes in favor of impeachment, then the Senate takes up the matter according to its rules. It bears repeating, this is not a criminal trial. Dems just have to convince enough of their own that it’s a good idea to dump this issue in the Senate where the Republicans almost certainly won’t vote for removal anyway.

    Gryph (08c844)

  25. Eric Swalwell
    When I’m not changing diapers, I’m changing Washington. Most of the time the diapers smell better.

    June 27, 2019

    harkin (337580)

  26. “Eric Swalwell”


    Davethulhu (fe4242)

  27. I don’t think it was Swalwell, probably Tingles.

    Plus, why threaten gun owners w nukes if you can deploy poison gas?

    harkin (337580)

  28. @23 Priebus didn’t act alone. There were several conspirators involved in this travesty.

    Gawain's Ghost (b25cd1)

  29. Paul Mntegu @15. The PDF file…

    …is much better to reas and study. I cannot understand why anybody would consider a scribd file tolerable.

    I don’t see that many, if any contradictions. Distinctions as to what different Americans were saying to each other and to Ukrainians are being lost, as well as different time frames and some of these discrepancies don’t even exist at all. There’s testimony from everybody that Giuliani (very often) only mentioned Burisma and not Biden. It took time for Sondland to understand that Biden was connected with Burisma.

    Also when Volker says

    “[A]t no time was I aware of or took part in an effort to urge Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Biden.”

    – Opening written statement, p. 3

    He means Biden specifically, and by “an effort” he also probably means by U.S. government officials, not Giuliani.

    There’s a lot of testimony quoted.

    Sammy Finkelman (976d9e)

  30. Kurt Volker is the one who supplied Congress with the text messages, it’s first real insight into what happened, and he didn’t have to volunteer them so I don’t think his intention was to lie or mislead.

    Some of the items on the list are not differences about facts, but different opinions.

    Here’s something interesting from Volker (although the deduction may be wrong, but I suspect it’s right because Biden bragging about stopping an investigation didn’t come from Giuliani:

    It was clear that he [Trump] also had other sources. It wasn’t only Rudy Giuliani. I don’t know who those might be, but he or at least he said, I hear from people.”

    – Deposition testimony, p. 305

    Discrepancy number 9 is whether Trump – was Trump himself at a May 23, 2019 meeting in the White House with Volker, Sondland and Rick Perry, or did Trump say this some other time – to talk to Rudy on the grounds he knows a lot about all of these things – was a comment or an instruction. Things like that are not contradictions.

    And Sondland doesn’t even say it was an order:

    Sondland: My impression was that if we
    never called Rudy and just left it alone that nothing would happen with Ukraine, in terms of all of the things we wanted to have happen. So I didn’t take it as an order as much as an indication that if he was going to have his mind changed, that was the path. That’s how I interpreted talk to Rudy.”

    – Sondland, Deposition testimony, p. 90

    This is a somewhat useful compilation of excerpts from testimony (sometimes leaving out crucial nearby clarifying words) but it is not a list of real problems with Volker’s testimony.

    By the way, we again (from Sondland) hear about Giuliani mentioning Burisma but not Biden.

    Sammy Finkelman (976d9e)

  31. Someone is suing Politico for falsely blaming him for giving Trump false derogatory information about Ukraine, and if Politico or its reporter is not guilty of malice, then someone associated with the House Intelligence Committee lied to Politico. (or both)

    Politico ran two stories by Politico reporter Natasha Betrand blaming Kash Patel, a National Security Council official who is also a protege of Devin Nunes, for feeding Trump bad information about Ukraine. He is suing in Virginia.

    The first article, dated October 23, simply blames him for fueling a belief by Trump that Ukraine was corrupt and had worked against him in the 2016 election.

    The second story, dated October 30, says that Alexander Vindman told the committee in his closed deposition that Patel has misrepresented himself in Ukraine affairs. There is also some claim about what Fiona Hill told the committee that is not detailed in the New York Post story I read. The New York Post says the lawsuit was first reported by Fox News..

    That is not in the released transcripts.

    Patel also says in court papers that at “no time” (before Oct 30) did he ever communicate “with the president on any matters involving Ukraine.”

    The lawsuit accuses Politico of working in concert with Schiff to report misinformation and calls Schiff “a demagogue with an axes to grind against the President, against Congressman Nunes and against Kash. “

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  32. During Silverman’s final moments on November 16, he’d talked about those recordings. “We have six years of podcasts,” he said. “I hope they’ll stay up. I hope I’ll be back here next week. I’ll keep doing this show for as long as I can. But I’m going to do other shows on other stations if I’m invited, because I can’t stop talking about it, and my contract is such that it allows me to do it. Of course, I can be terminated just like anybody else….”

    He didn’t quite get the last word of this sentence out before his voice was replaced by the sound of a CBS News update. (Click to hear it for yourself. These lines begin at just shy of the 31-minute mark.)

    Soon after Silverman was bounced, news outlets began asserting that he’d been fired for criticizing Trump, which KNUS disputed at a press conference late on November 17, necessitating pivots in coverage by theDenver Post and others. In his Westword interview the next day, Silverman said he wasn’t sure what his status was, but he confirmed that station management had never forbidden him from criticizing Trump

    Looks like this, like any other unsubstantiated national outcry story, should not have made headlines until some time had passed.

    BuDuh (7cff7d)

  33. Trump will keep sending out tweets.
    Much more entertaining than testimony.
    Trump should never testify about anything in public or under oath.
    He’s never going to be able to stop himself from embellishing.
    We’ve got a few lawyers in here… how many of you would advise your client Trump to go ahead and testify?
    nk, put your hand down… Trump would talk himself into 10 years of process crimes within the first 20 minutes. He’s set a world record

    steveg (354706)

  34. He will never testify in person. He’s dumb, but he’s not that dumb. He knows he can’t speak under oath because he knows he lies like he breathes.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  35. Will his inflated ego let him see how dangerous it is to testify? I doubt it, and he should testify so the public can hear from him.

    DRJ (15874d)

  36. But he might be afraid to testify. Maybe his bone spur condition will flare up.

    DRJ (15874d)

  37. His staff should point out that no matter what he says, and no matter how truthful it actually is, the Democrats will claim he lied under oath and impeach him for perjury.

    kishnevi (0c10d1)

  38. ”He will never testify in person. He’s dumb, but he’s not that dumb. He knows he can’t speak under oath because he knows he lies like he breathes.”
    Patterico (115b1f) — 11/19/2019 @ 7:57 am

    You mean the (non)whistleblower? The guy who wants to testify, according to Schiff, but won’t?

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  39. ”Looks like this, like any other unsubstantiated national outcry story, should not have made headlines until some time had passed.”
    BuDuh (7cff7d) — 11/19/2019 @ 6:44 am

    Oh, the outrage.

    The corrections should be rolling in any second now.

    Munroe (dd6b64)

  40. Will his inflated ego let him see how dangerous it is to testify? I doubt it, and he should testify so the public can hear from him.

    His ego works both ways here.

    -Testify because he’s the most perfect witness ever and it will fix everything
    -No Not testify because the pomp wouldn’t let him look dominant on the camera.

    If they offered to let him sit in a big chair that was higher than all the others and maybe painted gold he might testify.

    Time123 (653992)

  41. Like Pelosi said the other day, the House is her wheelhouse. Not the orange’s. He should stick to his wheelhouse, Twitter and rallies, and audiences that are receptive to his blabber.

    nk (dbc370)

  42. Trump rather quickly switched to giving written answers.

    If he wants to speak persnally on TV he still could give press conferences – or addresses to the nation, like Nixon did, but TV addresses to the nation have fallen out of style.

    It had started with JFK or maybe Eisenhower (and of course there were FDR’s “Fireside chats on radio) but the number of requsts increased. During the Johnson and Nixon presidencies, networks – and here were three – used to clear airtime for the President upon request. I think they stated to feel that Nixon overused it.

    That also used to still happen to some degree with Ford and Carter – I think it diminished during Reagan

    There came a time when even important Congressional hearings didn’t get air time. I think there was a point where the 3 networks rotated coverage (plus PBS which rebroadcast it) – was that Watergate in 1973? Or was that Iran contra in 1987?

    Later on Whitewater and Waco didn’t get intense coverage.

    This universal coverage is a throwback to an earlier time.

    Sammy Finkelman (c95a5a)

  43. Pretty much any question that they send to Trump could be answered with the Take Care clause of the constitution, and the relevant portions of Clinton’s treaty with Ukraine which lays out how they are supposed to help us and we them with these legal investigations.

    If the President doesn’t Take Care, then who does?

    Ingot9455 (7ff01c)

  44. Margaret Sullivan
    ‘I don’t know what to believe’ is an unpatriotic cop-out. Do better, Americans. … My column is a challenge, and a call to arms, for citizens
    __ _

    Stephen Miller
    “You need to shut up and trust us. Now watch as we smear a kid in a red hat on the National Mall.”


    harkin (337580)

  45. I’ve been thinking about this. I think I’m not going to take statements about this that aren’t made under oath and subject to cross examination seriously. If someone has something to say about this they can get an attorney and offer to testify. They get to make an opening statement and whichever party they’re affiliated with has an opportunity ask them question and make sure their points are delivered clearly.

    As a corollary to this I’m not going to count excuses about the corrupt ask (announce an investigation about my political rival) that aren’t made in that way. If Trump wants to insist that he was fighting corruption in general I’m not going to take that seriously until someone testifies to it and ideally provides some sort of corroboration.

    Similarly I’m not going to believe explanations about what Trump was trying to do that aren’t backed up by some sort of testimony. So nothing the whistle blower alleged is relevant unless it’s backed up by testimony.

    It’s rare in these types of scandals to have this level of clarity. We should make use of it.

    Time123 (66d88c)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2526 secs.