Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 4, 2019 18:00:20 GMT
And here we have the president instructing Republican congresspersons to fabricate transcripts.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Nov 5, 2019 1:30:21 GMT
Rand fires up the crowd:
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr Boom 70 on Nov 5, 2019 2:40:52 GMT
We can laugh about the absurdities and the hijinks of "President Trump" and the daily doings of the red side and blue side and the hilarity of it all ... ... but on the most basic level of decency it's sad and pathetic to see how Vindman's name and patriotism are being dragged through the mud. How is Vindman different from Michael Flynn? |
|
|
|
Post by xanadu on Nov 5, 2019 12:53:28 GMT
Today's dose of Whataboomism.
|
|
|
|
Post by xanadu on Nov 5, 2019 19:00:28 GMT
LOL. WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.
The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.
The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share New York Times photo |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 6, 2019 2:36:51 GMT
Add this to the list:
|
|
|
|
Post by Elderly man, very poor memory on Nov 6, 2019 3:33:58 GMT
LOL. WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.
The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.
The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-shareNew York Times photo A shame for Sondland how reality contradicted him. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 6, 2019 3:38:04 GMT
LOL. WASHINGTON — A critical witness in the impeachment inquiry offered Congress substantial new testimony this week, revealing that he told a top Ukrainian official that the country likely would not receive American military aid unless it publicly committed to investigations President Trump wanted.
The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union, in four new pages of sworn testimony released on Tuesday, confirmed his involvement in essentially laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that he had previously not acknowledged.
The testimony offered several major new details beyond the account he gave the inquiry in a 10-hour interview last month. Mr. Sondland provided a more robust description of his own role in alerting the Ukrainians that they needed to go along with investigative requests being demanded by the president’s personal lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani. By early September, Mr. Sondland said, he had become convinced that military aid and a White House meeting were conditioned on Ukraine committing to those investigations.
www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html?smid=nytcore-ios-shareNew York Times photo A shame for Sondland how reality contradicted him. This is the equivalent of a “nuh uh!” response. Me thinks you are running low on energy defending your boy. |
|
|
|
Post by formervanbboy on Nov 6, 2019 4:15:09 GMT
Next big thing is when one Lev Parnas rolls on Giuliani. That’ll be when it all really starts to unravel. Rudy will turn rat in a New York minute.
|
|
|
|
Post by YankeeFan on Nov 6, 2019 16:14:42 GMT
So, the entire D.C. media knows who the whistleblower is, yet no mainstream outlet has named him.
Anyone want to take a crack at defending that? Seems like they're a little incurious.
|
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 6, 2019 18:26:55 GMT
So, the entire D.C. media knows who the whistleblower is, yet no mainstream outlet has named him. Anyone want to take a crack at defending that? Seems like they're a little incurious. I don't know much about the whole whistleblower process, so take this attempt at extending this discussion with a grain of salt, but isn't there some necessity for the whistleblower to remain anonymous? Without that protection, they might be hesitant to blow a whistle for fear of reprisal from the person in question or from that person's supporters. And could the "mainstream" outlets be respecting that necessity? |
|
|
|
Post by Whitman on Nov 6, 2019 18:57:32 GMT
So, the entire D.C. media knows who the whistleblower is, yet no mainstream outlet has named him. Anyone want to take a crack at defending that? Seems like they're a little incurious. I don't know much about the whole whistleblower process, so take this attempt at extending this discussion with a grain of salt, but isn't there some necessity for the whistleblower to remain anonymous? Without that protection, they might be hesitant to blow a whistle for fear of reprisal from the person in question or from that person's supporters. And could the "mainstream" outlets be respecting that necessity? I think the question is more properly framed: Should they be? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2019 19:08:33 GMT
I don't know much about the whole whistleblower process, so take this attempt at extending this discussion with a grain of salt, but isn't there some necessity for the whistleblower to remain anonymous? Without that protection, they might be hesitant to blow a whistle for fear of reprisal from the person in question or from that person's supporters. And could the "mainstream" outlets be respecting that necessity? Anonymity isn’t a requirement. But protection from retaliation is, so the former might be one of the more effective ways to achieve the latter. We all know what Trump is trying to do, though. And, much like everything else he does, is incredibly shitty while technically “legal enough” for his dumbshit army to support. |
|
|
|
Post by TyWebb on Nov 6, 2019 19:26:32 GMT
I don't know much about the whole whistleblower process, so take this attempt at extending this discussion with a grain of salt, but isn't there some necessity for the whistleblower to remain anonymous? Without that protection, they might be hesitant to blow a whistle for fear of reprisal from the person in question or from that person's supporters. And could the "mainstream" outlets be respecting that necessity? I think the question is more properly framed: Should they be? Right, and the answer off the top of my head is yes, they should. There are many instances of outlets not reporting names for those people's protection, regardless of if there is a law against it or not. But GodAwfulBaseballTeamsFan seems to suggest the media is doing it with no other motive or intention than "because fuck Trump." |
|
|
|
Post by btexpress on Nov 6, 2019 19:57:55 GMT
Can't get Person of the Year if they don't know your name. Unless, in the spirit of "YOU", they give it to "HIM."  |
|
:format(jpeg):mode_rgb():quality(90)/discogs-images/R-919624-1312618814.jpeg.jpg)