Social Question

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Is the Maddow Parnas interview going to hurt Trump?

Asked by SQUEEKY2 (18086points) 1 month ago

I didn’t watch the whole thing, but what I did see Parnas seem to revile some pretty bad things about ole orange hair.
Saying one thing he did nothing without Trump knowing about it first.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

53 Answers

LadyMarissa's avatar

I think you know what his supporters are going to say; so NO, I seriously doubt that it’s going to hurt him. At the same time, it does give the rest of us HOPE!!!

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Just wonder how his loyal sheep are going to spin this ,and blame the democrats for it.

LadyMarissa's avatar

Where there’s a will…there’s a way!!!

Demosthenes's avatar

Aren’t we past the point where we think anything can hurt Trump? Do I have to say it? “He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue—”

That’s enough. He’s not going to be removed from office, guys.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Oh I know that but more of this kind of thing that comes to light hopefully will hurt him at the poles in 2020.

LadyMarissa's avatar

It still gives me hope!!! It’s almost like buying a lottery ticket knowing that it’s unlikely that I’ll win. Still the dream of winning gives a lot of pleasure until the reality hits!!! For now…I have a dream!!!

Yellowdog's avatar

You revile some pretty bad things about ole orange hair too, @SQUEEKY2

The question reflects that you have no background knowledge or history of why Rudy Giuliani was in Ukraine, and the Biden’s activities there. Just because your sources have ignored it does not mean it isn’t relevant—relevant to understand what’s going on. Many of us have been following this story for years, and do not buy your impossible narrative, especially with evidence to the contrary staring us in the face.

A criminal indicted for multiple crimes who has made deals to spew the same narrative the left has been spewing for six months has nothing new to contribute. if they did, it would have come out months ago,

Parnas has about as much credibility as Michael Avenatti had at the Kavenaugh hearings. If you open the door to having him speak as a witness in the senate trial (and I hope you will), a lot will be revealed about the Biden’s activities in Ukraine, which is the corruption you should really be concerned about—not the criminal investigations Giuliani has been conducting.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So you refuse to believe he worked for Trump and Giullani?
How extreme right wing of you, guess the photos of all of them together mean nothing?
Your total denial of all things bad in Trump land have to be admired, even if they are deluded.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Parnas is another BIG nail in Trump’s magnetic coffin. And beyond his involvement in the conspiracy to smear Biden is his unequivocal link in Trump’s collusion with Russia. Parnas and Fruman are allegedly bagmen responsible for funneling Russian money to the Trump campaign

filmfann's avatar

It won’t change the minds of anti-Trumpers, nor what poses as the minds of his supporters.
Those few independent and unsure will be the only one affected.

seawulf575's avatar

I don’t think it will hurt Trump. The problem with the entire case against Trump is that it has to suspend reality for it to work. Parnas’ story is just more of that. In the end, the facts remain that Trump suspended aid to Ukraine, had a nice congratulatory conversation with Zelenskyy, and released the aid. There was nothing nefarious in the conversation with Z. No quid pro quo ever existed. Z never felt any pressure and has stated such repeatedly. Ukraine never started an investigation into Biden and has never announced they will. Trump has gained nothing from Ukraine, other than an ally in Zelenskyy. And gaining popularity at home, but that is due to the obsessive, partisan nature of the Dems not Zelenskyy or anything that was said to him.

ragingloli's avatar

@seawulf575
Too bad that all the witnesses testified the very opposite of the drivel you just posted.
Meanwhile, the Ukraine just opened an investigation into the surveillance of ambassador Yovanovitch by drumpf underlings.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Gaining popularity as his scumbag affiliate totals soar beyond numbering? Once more, a solid demonstration of how anyone associated with the fool is destined for prison, Parnas has directly implicated Barr in the plot to sully Biden, meaning Barr’s ass is now on the line along with Giuliani. The Republican Senate might be the last rats tied to the sinking ship, but the SS Trump
is goin DOWN.

chyna's avatar

Apparently trump lovers deny that the pictures of him with this man are true, that the man is lying. Yet the republicans don’t want any witnesses to testify on behalf of trump. Is this because they know the witnesses will tell the truth?
Anything that comes out of trumps mouth is thought to be the gospel. I never understood how people could follow evil men like Jim Jones, Charles Manson, Hitler. I’m seeing it here on Fluther and still don’t understand how people believe everything that comes out of his mouth.

Yellowdog's avatar

@ragingloli The only witness that actually knew anything outside of their own opinion or what they heard through the grapevine, the only fact witness who was allowed to testify in the impeachment hearings was Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, who recounted specifically, in his phone call with President Donald Trump that he said that he wanted no “quid pro quo”

www.youtube.com/watch?v=J19NhzlQJwA

That’s pretty direct.

There are no witnesses that went through the congressional screening process in the basement of the capital who were allowed to testify to the contrary of your narrative. Sondland only admitted no quid pro quo when asked directly.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli “Too bad that all the witnesses testified the very opposite of the drivel you just posted.” Like who? All those that testified either said they had direct knowledge of things and there was no pressure put on Ukraine and that Trump specifically said he didn’t want anything from Ukraine OR they testified that they heard from someone that there were rumors going around about….fill in the blank OR they testified that they didn’t like Trump’s way of handling foreign policy. Too bad that isn’t their job to decide such things. In other words, it was opinion. 99% of the stuff the Dems released was hearsay information and opinion…not actual facts. So please, enlighten us all…which testimony actually refutes the facts?

seawulf575's avatar

And @ragingloli as for Ukraine looking into whether Yovanovich was surveilled let me ask this: isn’t asking a foreign government to look into corruption of political figures in this country exactly what the Dems have been trying to pin on Trump? So isn’t that exactly what they are doing…trying to use their political positions to get dirt on a political opponent?

Yellowdog's avatar

As for Parnas himself, he has been indicted for lying multiple times, is facing jail time, and has recently changed his narrative to fit yours. How credible does THAT look?

Many of us have been following the Ukraine / Biden scandal for several years, and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election involvement with the Ukraine since January 11, 2017 edition of Newsweek, and the narrative you (Parnas) are now espousing does not fit.

chyna's avatar

I wish the US would follow that lead and indict trump for lying millions of times.

Yellowdog's avatar

You’d have to prove he lied about something—Kathy Griffin testifying as a guest on The Tonight Show does not count.

ragingloli's avatar

Trump that he said that he wanted no “quid pro quo”
Which basically amounts to saying “stop hitting yourself”, while you are punching someone repeatedly in the face.

Drumpf demanded an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens, and illegally held back approved foreign aid to build pressure.
Fact.
Which is both a quid quo pro, and extortion.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

But according to our extreme fright wing friends the Ukraine president didn’t know the aid was being held up so there couldn’t have been a quid quo pro, oh and they say he didn’t feel pressured about the Biden thing so on quid quo pro.

Gee then why hold the aid in the first place?
Why even bring the Bidens up ?
You have to remember @ragingloli EVERYTHING is the democrats fault Trump is just trying to make the world better for all of us,(mostly his rich friends) .look how well he has brought back the coal mining jobs, look at how well his tariffs have helped the farmers, I mean he even removed legislated emission control standards on new vehicles how nice (who needs clean air) yu the guy is all heart.

seawulf575's avatar

@ragingloli When did he “demand” an investigation? Please…again…enlighten us. So far all you are doing is spewing leftist drivel. Try providing actual citations to back it up. And when President Zelenskyy states there was no quid pro quo

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/zelensky-criticizes-withholding-aid-claims-no-quid-pro-quo.html

what is your argument? The guy that is supposedly getting pressured says he wasn’t. Not sure what else there is. But then, I’m not a liberal so I can’t take liberal talking points and see truth in them. Oh! and let’s not forget this gem

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/ukraine-found-out-us-aid-was-suspended-weeks-after-trump-zelensky-phone-call

So if Trump was applying pressure, why did no one know about it until after the aid was released? But maybe you can share your glowing insights with us?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Why this guy say yea there was a quid quo pro after you saying there wasn’t….http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/gordon-sondland-yes-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo.html
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/gordon-sondland-yes-there-was-a-quid-pro-quo.html

There just in case you couldn’t get the other link to work.

Yellowdog's avatar

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/sondland-trump-administrations-efforts-in-ukraine-started-as-vanilla-more-demands-came-later

Pretty direct, @SQUEEKY2 ?

You are relying on a biased news source The above link is Sondland’s actual testimony in the hearings. Sondland bent over backwards to uphold the Democrat’s narrative, but offered no evidence for it and withheld exculpatory evidence as long as often as he could,

SQUEEKY2's avatar

He says one thing than another totally opposite?
You believe the one that makes your guy innocent, then say mine is biased ?
You forgot to add and oh yeah it’s all the democrats fault.

Yellowdog's avatar

I think you have to go by what Sondland actually says. Not what you or someone else say he says.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Well gee, in both videos sure looked like him talking.
So confused,guess you like the one that makes the Don Father look like a saint.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Ok,ok, we are getting off track will the Maddow Parnas interview hurt Trump or not??

stanleybmanly's avatar

Hurt? It’s another stake in the heart of our orange beast in the futile farce of “no it is NOT a turd”. The upcoming trial is in fact a splendid opportunity for turd denying Republicans to have their noses forcibly rubbed with mr. stinky as they whine through their smeared mouths of foul repugnance “I don’t smell or taste nothin”. It’s EXACTLY what they deserve, termination of their cowardly careers with shit on their faces. The smart ones are getting out now. Some 40 or so Republican Congress folk have already declared that they will mot submit to the upcoming butchering of everything Trump in November.

chyna's avatar

His “dream team” representing him in his impeachment trial were Epstein’s lawyers. Not surprised.

Yellowdog's avatar

@stanleybmanly Since you have such an obsession with feces, especially whenever you post about Trump or constitutional conservatives, maybe you should look at San Francisco (Nancy Pelosi’s district) or other cities in one-party states. Especially the California coast.

There is plenty of feces on the sidewalks, on the street, washing into the ocean, along with needles, rats, garbage, typhus. Your hate and disgust will find plenty to rave about and will be well placed.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@Yellowdog typical wonder Rep/con can you just answer the question, I get it it bothers you that quite a few people are not in love with Trump the way you are, you refuse to see his multiple lies his lack of empathy for anyone but himself.
You probably wouldn’t even give a shit if he did bomb Irans cultural sites, saying things like yeah they would have done that to the states given a chance, forget the FACT it would have been a war crime.
Like 2 videos showing Sondland say YES there was a quid quo pro
and another saying there was NO quid quo pro.
Not shocking seeing the one you will believe.
WILL YOU ANSWER THIS QUESTION ??
Will this interview hurt Trump YES? or NO?

Yellowdog's avatar

The hearings were carried live on many networks, and I saw how Sondland changed and altered his testimony as the hearings proceeded and it was growing more difficult to carry the narrative Sondand agreed to in the closed meetings in the basement before the hearings began.

The Democrats in control of the house would not permit any testimony of any fact witnesses that contradicted the narrative they were pushing. And in the end, neither could Sondland. There is too much that will be exposed in a senate trial. Once Sondland no longer carried Sschitt /Pelosi’s water, they discontinued using Sondland.

There is still a lot of media willing to push your narrative to attempt to create a false scenario in the perception of the public. Its called propaganda, and its dangerous when the media has adopted the idea that if you repeat a lie enough, people will believe it.

The facts have not changed, however, and willcome out in a senate trial. And indictments will eventually be coming from Durham and Barr, hopefully by April or May.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Thanks for your view, but you think it will be a fair trial? When Moscow Mitch, and Gram say they are only going to do what the President wants and get it over with as fast as possible,yup sounds super fair to me.
And you wonder why so many don’t like the Conservatives.
So by your own views Sondland changed his views to truthful, he started out saying yes there was a quid-quo-pro then changed it to no there wasn’t and that is the truth.
So by that logic Parnas started saying he had nothing to do with Trump and Guliani to he did nothing with out them knowing first so now he must be telling the truth, good to know.
And thanks for answering the question again not and going off in another direction even wulfie answered it how come you can’t?

stanleybmanly's avatar

Sooner or later, the Senate’s hand will be forced. As it is the preponderance of evidence mounts inexorably with Parnas as one more straw on the camel’s back. Meanwhile, the GAO as well as the OMB have ruled that Trump’s withholding of the funds was ILLEGAL.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 was the inquiry fair? Schiff didn’t let the Repubs bring in any witnesses they wanted, stopped lines of questioning he didn’t like, even refused to acknowledge points of order from Repubs. And you wonder why so many don’t like Liberals.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly I find your comment interesting. The Articles of Impeachment have already been written. That means that, supposedly, there was already a preponderance of evidence. Funny that you seem to think more should be found. Personally, I didn’t hear any evidence at all that shows any crimes were committed. And the Articles bear that out since they didn’t cite any actual crimes as a basis for impeachment. Parnas is a sketchy character as is and his testimony will be suspect.
As for the withholding of aid being illegal, it may have been. But then there is precedence for that too. It really doesn’t rise to the level of “High Crime and Misdemeanor”. What the GAO said has also been disputed about whether it was illegal or not. The OMB says it was not illegal and fell under their apportionment authority to ensure funds are used for what they were meant for and not for waste, fraud, and abuse. The OMB routinely delays payments for a number of things to make sure the funds are used correctly.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

So by your wonder logic the inquiry wasn’t fair so tit for tat the trail doesn’t have to be fair, did I get that right?

stanleybmanly's avatar

It isn’t that I think more evidence necessary to nail the fool. What I believe ABSOLUTELY is that more and more evidence will accumulate during this trial This trove of documents from Parnas and his testimony is but a fraction of what is to come. There WILL
BE NO GOOD NEWS FOR TRUMP evolving from the by now dozens of world wide investigations now underway, and the perils to ANYONE attached to the jackass are beyond dire. The Senate has more than a trial on its hands here. The hapless Republicans are coming to understand TOO LATE that they are actually in the process of overseeing the destruction of the Republican party.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

We can really hope that is the case^^^^!

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 Nope, I’m just amazed that suddenly you are worried about fairness and want to blame the Conservatives. I guess by your twisted logic, even though the Dems have done nothing fairly, you expect the Repubs to be bastions of fairness and find it unconscionable that they might not be.

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly Isn’t that exactly what you said about the Mueller investigation? The evidence is mounting, the fool is going down, Mueller is weaving a solid net around him, this crony or that crony is just about to seal his fate. How’d that work for you? Oh yeah…you were w-r-o-n-g.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

@seawulf575 Especially when they publicly state they are not going to be.
And yeah I forgot it’s still all the democrats fault.

stanleybmanly's avatar

I was wrong only in the fact that it turned out that Barr would adjudge a sitting President immune from prosecution by the DOJ. But never mind, because Barr himself is going to swing alongside the fool who cost him his career and reputation. Which brings us back to your assertion of the turd being cleared of colluding with Russia. Parnas absolutely revives those charges. Mueller got the ball rolling. And the prisons bulging with the turd’s close accomplices attest to it. THIS is what I told you when the fool was elected: 1. He would not last the term without impeachment. 2. He would be impeached because he would not escape ANY investigation intact. And 3. Any investigation of the fool must open more cesspools of his corruption. If you think Mueller’s inquiry exonerated the idiot, you’re crazy. The turd cannot withstand a close look. And those now tasked with the obligation of demonstrating that the turd is NOT a turd are up against it. It’s taking longer than it should, but your fool is on the downslope with his more than justifiable disgrace assured, along with the hypocritical spineless dupes tied to his despicable allegiance.

seawulf575's avatar

@SQUEEKY2 so you are supporting the blatant partisan unfairness by the Dems?

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Uh NO didn’t I already state it’s all their fault?
Isn’t everything wrong in the world the democrats fault?
And I get from you that the impeachment process was rigged so it’s more than fair to rig the trial, and after all it’s all the democrats fault.

seawulf575's avatar

No, what you are getting from me is the amazement that liberals are screaming about fairness from the Repubs when they were all for partisan sham from the Dems. McConnell has already said they would follow the same rules as were used with Bill Clinton. That doesn’t seem to be enough for the Dems. They continue, like you, to scream about how unfair the Repubs are trying to be…once again ignoring reality in your effort to hate Trump.

stanleybmanly's avatar

Effort is required?

seawulf575's avatar

@stanleybmanly to completely suspend reality, ignore facts, buy into misinformation and generate and maintain hatred…yeah, it sounds like an awful lot of effort to me.

SQUEEKY2's avatar

Maybe for you effort would be required for anyone that isn’t an extreme fright winger it comes quite easy.

seawulf575's avatar

So you admit to suspending reality, ignoring facts, buying into misinformation and generating and maintaining hatred? Thanks. But then….doesn’t that mean all those you consider “extreme fright winger” people are the only ones that are dealing in reality?

stanleybmanly's avatar

The reality of Trump is hateful by itself. Once again, invention on the part of witnesses is neither necessary nor extant. You can spew that claptrap as the noose tightens round his criminal neck, but your imagination will not deter his certain and well deserved destruction.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther