The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[houndawg]

Four years for Benghazi - this might take a while as things drip, drip, drip out from the hearings...

Great point. An example of where aid ACTUALLY was denied. To Americans. Four of whom (including a sitting ambassador) ended up dying. THAT deserved an impeachment/firing/criminal proceedings. This? fucking child's play in comparison...

You still trying to sell that bullshit? I think the military was clear about the possibility of help arriving in time.

[houndawg]

But I heard from my father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate that Orange Man Bad!

This is really not going well for Schiff and friends.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I guess its all relative - it's going pretty good for Schiff compared to how its going for Cohen, Manafort, and Stone...

[houndawg]

What do you expect?

Pelosi is scoring own goals every day now.

Starting with the claim that what Trump did was bribery. It isn’t. And that’s a problem fir the Dems because bribery means that both the quid and the quo have to be shown.

If Pelosi’s staffers were thinking clearly instead of just trying to dumb things down so their constituency will understand what they are accusing Trump with.... they wouldn’t go with bribery. They would go with a Federal statute that fits almost exactly with what actually (probably) happened. But maybe extortion is too big of a word I guess.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/601


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But “Bribery” tested better with the focus groups. So that’s what they’re going with. Never mind there’s not a shred of evidence to support it. It tested well.

I wonder why Pop'n'Fresh wont let anybody testify? This would have been over a long time ago...

[houndawg]

Four years for Benghazi - this might take a while as things drip, drip, drip out from the hearings...

Heck, the GOP might not care if that's the case - get Trump re-elected, and then they can part ways with him in his second term and it's no harm no foul, plus, and perhaps even better, they can set up Pence or whomever to be the guy who steps in, finishes the term, and gets to run with the power of being an incumbent in 2024. Of course, to the Democrats favor, most of their current candidates for President could be either dead or just that much older in 2024, so they might finally let the younger part of the party find a potential nominee.

They do kind of look like well-dressed Politburo members
.

[houndawg]

Meanwhile, on Wall St...

Dow 28,000+
S&P 3120+
Nasdaq 8540+

A record for you, and a record for you, and a record for you too! The only thing that can stop this is a Democrat in the White House.

Funny, when Obama was Prez many of our resident experts assured us that President's don't have much effect on the DOW and the S&P and the NASDAQ. I believe one of them was you, n'est pas?

[BDKJMU]

I have been watching little FNC.

Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Redstate, Whatfinger, and talk radio. I used to go to Drudge, but recently not as much.
I’ll have to check out Conservative Treehouse.

[houndawg]

Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Redstate, Whatfinger, and talk radio. I used to go to Drudge, but recently not as much.
I’ll have to check out Conservative Treehouse.

Did they lose you when they dropped their ban on multi-syllabic words?

[AZGrizFan]

Great point. An example of where aid ACTUALLY was denied. To Americans. Four of whom (including a sitting ambassador) ended up dying. THAT deserved an impeachment/firing/criminal proceedings. This? fucking child's play in comparison...

You still trying to sell that bullshit? I think the military was clear about the possibility of help arriving in time.

Read a book. By people who were on the ground and IN the firefight. Educate yourself and you'll understand.

Or, just go on believing Clinton's, Obama's and Rice's version of events.

[Ibanez]

Where do you get your information? Red State? Conservative Treehouse?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Redstate, Whatfinger, and talk radio. I used to go to Drudge, but recently not as much.
I’ll have to check out Conservative Treehouse.

You can do better than Red State. It's as bad as HuffPo or Vox. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/

Sounds like Whatfinger is the same. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/whatfinger// I have never heard of that site, i'll have to check it out.

I know that Drudge has caught flak b/c they'll post headlines and articles that are not compatible with conservative or alt-right narrative aka - There's always going to be a bias but I think it's important to not intake your news in an echo chamber.

[SeattleGriz]

Redstate, Whatfinger, and talk radio. I used to go to Drudge, but recently not as much.
I’ll have to check out Conservative Treehouse.

You can do better than Red State. It's as bad as HuffPo or Vox. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/

Sounds like Whatfinger is the same. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/whatfinger// I have never heard of that site, i'll have to check it out.

I know that Drudge has caught flak b/c they'll post headlines and articles that are not compatible with conservative or alt-right narrative aka - There's always going to be a bias but I think it's important to not intake your news in an echo chamber.

Like I said, it's pretty easy to spot their bias. If I really need a check, I'll go to Hotair. Never Trumpets, but still conservative.

Not sure I buy the validity of mediabiasfact. They have the Lawfare blog as least biased. Do you know who Lawfare is?

[GannonFan]

Politics today are exactly as we thought they were - rigid partisanship. Interesting read from NPR, basically says that the impeachment inquiry/hearings aren't swaying and likely won't sway many, and in most cases they only harden the views people already have.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

[Ibanez]

You can do better than Red State. It's as bad as HuffPo or Vox. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/red-state/

Sounds like Whatfinger is the same. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/whatfinger// I have never heard of that site, i'll have to check it out.

I know that Drudge has caught flak b/c they'll post headlines and articles that are not compatible with conservative or alt-right narrative aka - There's always going to be a bias but I think it's important to not intake your news in an echo chamber.

Like I said, it's pretty easy to spot their bias. If I really need a check, I'll go to Hotair. Never Trumpets, but still conservative.

Not sure I buy the validity of mediabiasfact. They have the Lawfare blog as least biased. Do you know who Lawfare is?

Yes, a group that is to the left but not extreme. There's always a bias.

[kalm]

Politics today are exactly as we thought they were - rigid partisanship. Interesting read from NPR, basically says that the impeachment inquiry/hearings aren't swaying and likely won't sway many, and in most cases they only harden the views people already have.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

But that’s not the point. Or is it?

Btw, watching part of Vindman’s statement, he sounds like he could be the whistleblower. I’m not saying he is but his testimony along with Trump’s public admissions lends credence to the point that who the whistleblower is doesn’t really matter.

[Ibanez]

Politics today are exactly as we thought they were - rigid partisanship. Interesting read from NPR, basically says that the impeachment inquiry/hearings aren't swaying and likely won't sway many, and in most cases they only harden the views people already have.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

But that’s not the point. Or is it?

Btw, watching part of Vindman’s statement, he sounds like he could be the whistleblower. I’m not saying he is but his testimony along with Trump’s public admissions lends credence to the point that who the whistleblower is doesn’t really matter.

The GOP only cares about who said what. Not the substance of the allegations.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[GannonFan]

Politics today are exactly as we thought they were - rigid partisanship. Interesting read from NPR, basically says that the impeachment inquiry/hearings aren't swaying and likely won't sway many, and in most cases they only harden the views people already have.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

But that’s not the point. Or is it?

Btw, watching part of Vindman’s statement, he sounds like he could be the whistleblower. I’m not saying he is but his testimony along with Trump’s public admissions lends credence to the point that who the whistleblower is doesn’t really matter.

Eh, if the point was to 1) decide that something significant happened and 2) if that thing that happened is worthy of impeachment then yes, I'm sure it's the point of all of this. Pretty sure #1 happened, and pretty sure that there's no clear answer on #2. I'm pretty much okay with that - removing a President would be a huge groundshift in American politics, especially one in the first term with less than a year to the general election. Obviously, the stakes aren't that large then, since the Dems can't both impeach and remove him from office. They can impeach him and have no worry about the impact since he's not going anyway until the electorate decides.

[Ibanez]

A few thoughts on today’s testimony.

On the first session - the GOP looked pathetic complaining g and whining instead of asking the witnesses pertinent questions. Rep. Jordan has confirmed my suspicions about his lack of principles.


Adam Schiffs demeanor makes him looks uppity. His eyes haunt my dreams.


On the Second Session - the two witnesses do t help the Democrats case but it’s not necessarily a vindication for Trump. The counsel (Castor) sucks at cross examining. He comes off as I’ll prepared.

Overall - the GOP strategy appears to be character assassinations and trying to make the witnesses make a legal judgment of Trumps guilt or innocence. IMO, it’s not for the witnesses to say if a crime has been committed. Epstein didn’t kill himself. They are there to share what they have seen and heard and how it may or may not be abnormal, inappropriate or whatever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

But that’s not the point. Or is it?

Btw, watching part of Vindman’s statement, he sounds like he could be the whistleblower. I’m not saying he is but his testimony along with Trump’s public admissions lends credence to the point that who the whistleblower is doesn’t really matter.

Eh, if the point was to 1) decide that something significant happened and 2) if that thing that happened is worthy of impeachment then yes, I'm sure it's the point of all of this. Pretty sure #1 happened, and pretty sure that there's no clear answer on #2. I'm pretty much okay with that - removing a President would be a huge groundshift in American politics, especially one in the first term with less than a year to the general election. Obviously, the stakes aren't that large then, since the Dems can't both impeach and remove him from office. They can impeach him and have no worry about the impact since he's not going anyway until the electorate decides.

I’ve been listening to much of the testimony, as I have it on in the background.
I’m quite certain Trump did something unethical/inappropriate but I’m not sure if it’s impeachable. Without Mulvaneys or Bolton’s testimony, the argument for impeachment is rather weak.


And even if he did testify, I’m sure Mick would lie. He seems like he would.



Again - there’s something about Jim Jordan that irks me. More than him being from Ohio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kalm]

But that’s not the point. Or is it?

Btw, watching part of Vindman’s statement, he sounds like he could be the whistleblower. I’m not saying he is but his testimony along with Trump’s public admissions lends credence to the point that who the whistleblower is doesn’t really matter.

Eh, if the point was to 1) decide that something significant happened and 2) if that thing that happened is worthy of impeachment then yes, I'm sure it's the point of all of this. Pretty sure #1 happened, and pretty sure that there's no clear answer on #2. I'm pretty much okay with that - removing a President would be a huge groundshift in American politics, especially one in the first term with less than a year to the general election. Obviously, the stakes aren't that large then, since the Dems can't both impeach and remove him from office. They can impeach him and have no worry about the impact since he's not going anyway until the electorate decides.

Bullshit.

Prosecute it like you would a weed dealer selling an 8th on the corner. That's a big part of our problem and what causes the cheating. Money, influence, and inconvenience should not determine prosecution if we're a just state....Which I fully recognize, we're not.

[SDHornet]

So much for the "bribery" narrative.

[SDHornet]

Yeah this Vindman guy is totally credible.

Nice smirk at the 1 minute mark...hmmm...

[SDHornet]

Politics today are exactly as we thought they were - rigid partisanship. Interesting read from NPR, basically says that the impeachment inquiry/hearings aren't swaying and likely won't sway many, and in most cases they only harden the views people already have.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

Going in on the heels of the Russia Trump collusion hoax didn't help things...

...right jelly?

[SeattleGriz]

Like I said, it's pretty easy to spot their bias. If I really need a check, I'll go to Hotair. Never Trumpets, but still conservative.

Not sure I buy the validity of mediabiasfact. They have the Lawfare blog as least biased. Do you know who Lawfare is?

Yes, a group that is to the left but not extreme. There's always a bias.

See! If you'd have been reading Conservative Treehouse you would know.

Lol

Lawfare is pretty much intertwined with the Democrats. Not sure what the Republican version is, but I'm sure they have a "group" of lawyers as well.

[Ibanez]

Yes, a group that is to the left but not extreme. There's always a bias.

See! If you'd have been reading Conservative Treehouse you would know.

Lol

Lawfare is pretty much intertwined with the Democrats. Not sure what the Republican version is, but I'm sure they have a "group" of lawyers as well.

I don’t read either.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleGriz]

The wheels fell off this charade once it went public.

All other complaining is just that.

4D Chess

[Ibanez]

The wheels fell off this charade once it went public.

All other complaining is just that.

4D Chess

There’s no chess here. Just both sides bloviating.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk