Archive 2017-2019 Political Thread

[gangstonc]

When he said he was going to nuke fellow Americans, I didn't think he meant this way.

Haaaa. I wonder if it was him or the host!

 

[gangstonc]

Holmes: "We understood the significance of opening a new investigation of the Bidens and/or Burisma as being motivated primarily by a domestic US political concern, because we were not aware of another reason, new facts or other reasons to initiate a new investigation." (p. 194)

More and more testimony makes trump look bad.

 

[JayF]

AP FACT CHECK: Trump revisits old fictions about Iran money

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is recycling familiar fictions concerning the Iran nuclear deal as he lashes out at a Republican senator who criticized him and a U...

apnews.com

Note the line about the 1.8 billion. They paid, we didn't deliver. Do you have any sources?

I think this article best describes the entire situation.

In the 1970s the Shah sought to make Iran a military superpower

by Paul Iddon. While it almost seems ironic in retrospect, Iran was by far the biggest recipient of American, and British weaponry in the 1970s and was rapidly becoming a major power. Awash with pe…

www.offiziere.ch

 

[Kory]

Haaaa. I wonder if it was him or the host!

Either way, it’s probably the most intelligent sound to ever come from either one of them while on camera.

 

[WesL]

Just a quick reminder on linking to websites. Please include a short description for each link you provide.

 

[Matt]

Vindman is being eviscerated today. He was the leak to Eric Ciaramella, the WB. I believe he just perjured himself.

 

[Kory]

Adam Schiff's facial expressions make me so uncomfortable.

 

[Matt]

Yep, the justice system is screwed up.

 

[gangstonc]

Vindman is being eviscerated today. He was the leak to Eric Ciaramella, the WB. I believe he just perjured himself.

Once again, you and i don’t agree. Vindman did the right thing. The republican line of questioning again didn’t focus on the facts of bribery, but rather the process and personal attacks.

And since he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, didn’t name a name in case that person was the whistleblower.

 

[JayF]

Once again, you and i don’t agree. Vindman did the right thing. The republican line of questioning again didn’t focus on the facts of bribery, but rather the process and personal attacks.

And since he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, didn’t name a name in case that person was the whistleblower.

I think he does know who the Whistleblower is, Why would Adam Schiff stop a line of questioning several times stating that he wanted to protect the identity of the WB if Mr. Vindman Uhhum I mean the Lt COL if he didn't know who the WB is? If LT COL Vindman is the whistleblower, that is the only way any of this is legit.

 

[Matt]

Once again, you and i don’t agree. Vindman did the right thing. The republican line of questioning again didn’t focus on the facts of bribery, but rather the process and personal attacks.

And since he doesn’t know who the whistleblower is, didn’t name a name in case that person was the whistleblower.

He knows the WB. He was the source for the WB. That's why Schiff intervened when Vindman was asked about the second person he talked to that was not on the call. One was Kent and the second person he said was a qualified source in the IC. It was Eric Ciaramella.

 

[WesL]

I think he does know who the Whistleblower is, Why would Adam Schiff stop a line of questioning several times stating that he wanted to protect the identity of the WB if Mr. Vindman Uhhum I mean the Lt COL if he didn't know who the WB is? If LT COL Vindman is the whistleblower, that is the only way any of this is legit.

He knows the WB. He was the source for the WB. That's why Schiff intervened when Vindman was asked about the second person he talked to that was not on the call. One was Kent and the second person he said was an a qualified source in the IC. It was Eric Ciaramella.

Riddle me this.... why does it matter if he knows the whistleblower or not? It seems to me that we have multiple confirmations from various career professionals and political appointees with firsthand knowledge that the allegations that were made in the complaint have been verified. Wouldn't the unmasking of the whistleblower be mute at this point and only serve as an agenda for reprisal?

Furthermore, because we have this sworn testimony of those who were on the calls and those with knowledge of the proceedings, shouldn't the focus be on what happened and if any laws were broken. Don't get me wrong I think all the stuff that Trump and Rudy were involved in was shady, but not quite sure they breech barrier of the law yet.

 

[gangstonc]

He knows the WB. He was the source for the WB. That's why Schiff intervened when Vindman was asked about the second person he talked to that was not on the call. One was Kent and the second person he said was an a qualified source in the IC. It was Eric Ciaramella.

Could have been the whistleblower. The idea is to not even narrow it down to two people.

Here are a couple of things that happened today:

Vindman and Williams testified that it was well known the Dod had certified that anti-corruption terms had been met in Ukraine.

This exchange shows the types of attacks the Republicans are trying - not substance but process:
Wenstrup: Chain of command. You were to directly report to Hill and Morrison. When you had concerns about the 7-25 call you didn't go to Morrison.
Vindman: I reported to Eisenberg. Tried to report to Morrison. He didn't avail himself.

The GOP counsel said Burisma wording was removed from memorandum of transcripts 2 times!

Vindman: The first I heard of the WB complaint was when news broke

It is also important that Vindman is a first hand witness. The hearsay defense is gone.

WesL, I don't think the president has to break the law to be impeached, but I'm not sure of the legality of what all officially constitutes a bribe.

 

[WesL]

WesL, I don't think the president has to break the law to be impeached, but I'm not sure of the legality of what all officially constitutes a bribe.

True but I think Trump may actually owe the whistleblower a deal of thanks. It sounds like the complaint went public and he released the money before the Ukrainian President could actually follow through with any of the actions that he had been asked to complete in exchange for the money. In other words the whistleblower basically protected Trump from himself.

 

[gangstonc]

True but I think Trump may actually owe the whistleblower a deal of thanks. It sounds like the complaint went public and he released the money before the Ukrainian President could actually follow through with any of the actions that he had been asked to complete in exchange for the money. In other words the whistleblower basically protected Trump from himself.

Yes, because some people don't seem to get the idea that an attempted crime is still a crime.

 

[WesL]

Yes, because some people don't seem to get the idea that an attempted crime is still a crime.

For most people... that aren't President of the United States... at least while they are still in office... now Rudy is a whole other story...

 

[gangstonc]

For most people... that aren't President of the United States... at least while they are still in office... now Rudy is a whole other story...

Oh it's still a crime, it's just the only punishment is impeachment and removal...

 

[WesL]

Oh it's still a crime, it's just the only punishment is impeachment and removal...

This is exactly where I wish the Founding Fathers had either been a bit more detailed in their thinking but alas there is no way they would have ever imagined the situation we are in today. Must have been nice.

 

[JayF]

Riddle me this.... why does it matter if he knows the whistleblower or not? It seems to me that we have multiple confirmations from various career professionals and political appointees with firsthand knowledge that the allegations that were made in the complaint have been verified. Wouldn't the unmasking of the whistleblower be mute at this point and only serve as an agenda for reprisal?

Furthermore, because we have this sworn testimony of those who were on the calls and those with knowledge of the proceedings, shouldn't the focus be on what happened and if any laws were broken. Don't get me wrong I think all the stuff that Trump and Rudy were involved in was shady, but not quite sure they breech barrier of the law yet.

I do not think it matters who the Whistleblower is or not. I do however believe it does matter that he may have perjured himself.

 

[WesL]

Vindman is being eviscerated today. He was the leak to Eric Ciaramella, the WB. I believe he just perjured himself.

I do not think it matters who the Whistleblower is or not. I do however believe it does matter that he may have perjured himself.

Explain this to me. Sorry not able to watch/listen today so just getting chunks here and there.