|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Right Side of the News | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
No, they only spread shit.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Sure you can get a bunch of Democrats to agree on what it all means and tell roughly the same story although there's been a lot of dscrpancy the Republican interrogators have been exposing, and the "whistleblower" is contradicted by the phone call transcript itself, rightly understood by all the conservative commentators I hear every day.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined: |
Several of them are Republicans, especially Sondland. The two witnesses the Republicans requested supported the testimony of the other witnesses with a few discrepancies.
List four significant discrepancies between any two accounts. (Slight discrepancies are characteristic of true testimony). You won't because you can't, there are none. The phone call "transcript" confirms the whistleblower's account. "We want arms" "I want a favor, investigate some Russian propaganda and revive a rightly-closed investigation against my political rival". Lots of participants were shocked at that blatant extortion. .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Faith writes: ...although there's been a lot of discrepancy the Republican interrogators have been exposing,... And those discrepancies would be?
...and the "whistleblower" is contradicted by the phone call transcript itself, rightly understood by all the conservative commentators I hear every day. And those contradictions would be? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6
|
Faith writes: A witness would be someone who ***** Trump's phone calls or talked to Trump personally. there were a couple of those. Everybody else was not a witness. William Taylor was a direct witness to Sondland telling him that there was a quid pro quo. Sondland has stated that he was following Trump's orders. It isn't that hard to figure out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Sure you can get a bunch of Democrats to agree on what it all means and tell roughly the same story although there's been a lot of dscrpancy the Republican interrogators have been exposing, It isn't Democrats testifying. These are people from the Trump Administration including non-partisan career officials.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Sondland donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration. Which likely had a lot to do with his appointment.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
JonF Member (Idle past 198 days) Posts: 6174 Joined:
|
Buying an ambassadorship is a tradition practiced by both sides.
But Sondland's no Democrat.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
quote: Donating $1 million to Trump’s inauguration is what Sonderland did. Now we get screws turned for another $500,000 for Senate confirmation. And Sonderland, in my opinion, demonstrated amply that amateurs/pretend ambassadors do more harm than good, and that he was unsuited for the task of representing the US. He allowed Rudy to subvert the aid to Ukraine. The career diplomat ambassador, Marie Yovanovitch, wasn't going to go along with the corrupt scheme. Enjoyby our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
No, they only spread shit. Actually they think they are doing a snow-job, but it's yellow snow. by our ability to understand RebelAmericanZenDeist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
A witness would be someone who ***** Trump's phone calls or talked to Trump personally. there were a couple of those. Amb. Sondland talked to Trump personally. He testifies to the fact that there was not only a quid pro quo but also that everybody (ie, Trump, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) was aware of it and was on board with it. Also, Pompeo was on that single phone call in question -- even though he denied it at first, he finally admitted that he had lied earlier and was indeed in on the call. LtCol Vindman was also in on the call. You did not even come close to approaching answering my primary questions in Message 3535:
DWise1 writes: So why don't {Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc} show up and testify? They have been requested as witnesses and have received subpoenas, so why don't they show up and testify? The reason is because the White House has ordered them to ignore the subpoenas and to not testify. So if they are supposed to be the ones with information to exonerate Trump, why is Trump ordering them to not testify? The reason is because their testimony would not exonerate Trump, but rather would condemn him. Otherwise, why else would Trump be so desperate to cover everything up? So then why don't Pompeo nor Mulvaney step forward and exonerate Trump with their sworn testimony? Why instead does Trump order them to not testify and they in turn order their subordinates to not testify? You know full well, as do we all, that if their truthful testimony would exonerate Trump then Trump would be ordering them to testify. So why doesn't Trump so order them?
Everybody else was not a witness. Everybody else is indeed a witness to the entire affair, which is not restricted to a single phone call summary filled with ellipses leaving out important parts according to first-hand witness LtCol Vindman (HINT: creationist quote-mining makes very heavy use of ellipses to leave out the parts of the quoted source that would place the quoted parts in context -- in at least one case, the first part of the sentence was from the first paragraph of the article and the second part was from the last paragraph such that the ellipsis covered up the entire article being "quoted"). We are dealing with a months-long operation to pressure the Ukrainian government to give Trump personally something of value (ie, dirt on his leading potential 2020 opponent based on pure Russian propaganda), of which Trump's clear and admitted violation of federal law (ie, soliciting a foreign government for something of value to benefit yourself personally) is only one small part. That Trump was offering Zelensky something of value (ie, military aid) in exchange for services qualifies as a bribe, or that he was threatening to harm Ukraine in order to pressure Zelensky to accede to Trump's demands qualifies as extortion are just additional charges to pile upon Trump's long list of crimes and wrongdoing. Witnesses to the various parts of the entire operation to pressure the government of Ukraine are still witnesses.
The whistleblower also got his stuff second or third hand. there are other things that disqualify him as a whistleblower but those do for starters. Let's use the metaphor of a fire. A whistleblower smells smoke which alerts him to the possibility that there might be a fire. Off hand, there are three possibilities:
Let's consider another famous whistleblower whose name nobody remembers. During the infamous Watergate break-in, a security guard (the whistleblower in our story) found a door whose latch had been taped over to keep that door open. That led to further investigation which caught the "plumbers" in the act, which led to the White House's cover-up, which led eventually to the impeachment hearings against Nixon, which led eventually to Nixon having to resign the Presidency in order to avoid impeachment. The role of a whistleblower is to draw attention to a potential problem. The role of the investigators following up on that whistleblower report is to determine whether an actual problem exists and to refer further investigation to appropriate agencies. That is exactly what has happened. So, Faith, the question still stands: Why don't any of the primary witnesses (ie, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Trump, et al.) come forward to testify? If their testimony would exonerate Trump, then they should be strongly motivated to testify. The only reasonable explanation for their extremely stubborn refusal to testify would be that their truthful testimony would only condemn Trump and themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Buying an ambassadorship is a tradition practiced by both sides. Agreed. Most ambassadorships are more figurehead positions in nations with no problems. So long as you can put on a good party, etc, you're qualified. In the more troubled parts of the world, that's where we need the professionals like Marie Yovanovitch. Somebody likened it to the two different kinds of film producers: the ones who only write the checks to finance the film (eg, Steven Mnuchin who produced Wonder Woman) and the ones invested in making that film. Yet some such appointments can be surprising. When President Reagan in 1981 made actor John Gavin ambassador to Mexico, we all rolled our eyes. But then we learned that Gavin had a master's in Latin American affairs, so he actually had some useful skills. Now I find that John Gavin is himself Hispanic. So not all suspicious looking appointments are necessarily bad.
But Sondland's no Democrat. Gordon Sondland turns out to have been active in politics before this, albeit on the state level (Oregon) as well as in philanthropic efforts where he is supposed to have made a good name for himself. He's not the complete babe in the woods politically, though he undoubtedly now finds himself out of his depth being suddenly thrust into the international deeps. I agree that what we're seeing is that everybody is trying to push him under the bus (AKA "the Gordon Problem"), so his response is to drag everybody else under the bus with him.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.7 |
Actually they think they are doing a snow-job, but it's yellow snow. There can be times when you might want to eat the yellow snow. I've heard about Siberian shamans using psychedelics in their religious experiences which might lead to our Xmas fantasies of flying reindeer. I'm pretty sure it's mushrooms that were used, but please substitute whatever it ends up actually being. That psychedelic bio-material is poisonous to humans, but not to reindeer. Once it has been filtered through the reindeers' kidneys, the output was no longer poisionous though the psychedelic properties were still intact. Therefore, you could safely eat the yellow snow in order to have your vivid religious experiences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Amb. Sondland talked to Trump personally. He testifies to the fact that there was not only a quid pro quo but also that everybody (ie, Trump, Pompeo, Mulvaney, etc) was aware of it and was on board with it. Funny I recall Sondland specifically saying Trump specifically said he specifrically did not want a quid pro quo. He was simply asking Zelensky to do what Zelensky said he was going to do, clear up Ukrainian corruption, and there was no aid involved in that request. The aid was completely independent. But it's becoming pretty clear that the Democrats are going to make it all up anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.6 |
Faith writes: Funny I recall Sondland ************ saying Trump ************ said he ************* did not want a quid pro quo. That was only after they got caught.
quote:
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024