The Trump Whistleblower Extravaganza Thread

[JohnStOnge]

Now for the reason I came to this thread: After I watched today I wondered about what the coverage would be like in terms of influencing perception. So I decided to watch ABC World News Tonight. The reason I did that is that it's the highest rated network news nightly news show. The viewerships of network news nightly news shows dwarf any viewerships for comparable time periods on the cable news networks. ABC World News Tonight averages about 8 1/2 million viewers per 30 minute session. The highest rated cable news network show is Sean Hannity. That's sad, I know. But he averages around 3 1/2 million.

The major network news nightly news shows average about 21 million combined.

So I decided to watch ABC World News tonight today to see the impression created with respect to the Sondland testimony. And it was not good for Trump and the Republicans. They dutifully reported what the Republican talking points were. But they also dutifully destroyed them with context such as the fact that, when Trump told Sondland on the phone that there was no quid pro quo, he was already aware of the whistleblower report and the fact that the jig was up.

I have little doubt that the other two major broadcast networks provided similar coverage.

“Dutifully,” huh?

ABC, David Muir, and Jonathan Karl have been sucking Schiff’s cock all week.

All of the major network news broadcasts have high accuracy ratings. In any case, what I'm talking about here is perception. A lot more people get their information from the major broadcast network news shows than from cable news. And I am encouraged by the indications that the major network reporting on this does not make things look good for Trump and the Republicans.

And that's good because the TRUTH does not look good for Trump and the Republicans. It's a totally corrupt and dishonest President being supported by a totally corrupt and dishonest Party. The truth is that both Trump and the Republican Party need to be eliminated as significant factors in the management of this country.

[Ivytalk]

“Dutifully,” huh?

ABC, David Muir, and Jonathan Karl have been sucking Schiff’s cock all week.

All of the major network news broadcasts have high accuracy ratings. In any case, what I'm talking about here is perception. A lot more people get their information from the major broadcast network news shows than from cable news. And I am encouraged by the indications that the major network reporting on this does not make things look good for Trump and the Republicans.

And that's good because the TRUTH does not look good for Trump and the Republicans. It's a totally corrupt and dishonest President being supported by a totally corrupt and dishonest Party. The truth is that both Trump and the Republican Party need to be eliminated as significant factors in the management of this country.

You can be encouraged all the way down the block to your neighborhood bar for a couple shots of Sazerac, but NOBODY’S perceptions will change. And I say that with 95% confidence.

[Skjellyfetti]

a couple shots of Sazerac

or a couple shots of old fashioned?

[Ivytalk]

a couple shots of Sazerac

or a couple shots of old fashioned?

I was talking about the rye whiskey, doofus. Not that grandmother drink that you apparently imbibe.

[Ibanez]

That doesn’t mean there wasn’t. All that means is that Trump didn’t tell Sondland.


You haven’t told me your real name or occupation. Does that mean you have neither?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NO-ONE told Sondland. Sondland stated such. So if no one told Sondland, it’s a lie for the fake news MSM to say Sondland confirmed a quid-pro quo..

If nobody tells you the sun is hot, does that mean it isn’t? You don’t need to be told something to make an assumption, guess or understand a truth.

After listening to Jim Jordan, I’ve realized that they’re justifying the shady behavior by admitting that the aid was eventually released (after all of this came to light) and that President Z never made a public announcement about Burisma. If it’s true that Trump was pressuring them for political dirt, does it matter is anything materialized or not?


The transcript is pretty clear. How come nobody defends what Trump said and Mulvaney confirmed? How come that isn’t being brought up by the Republicans?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

It was a joke.

I find it amusing that every problem or scandal that arises is some long game that Trump has thought out. To what end, I’m not sure. Then again, I don’t “understand the genius of our President.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got it. You dislike the chess analogy for the same reason I like to use it. It's absurd.

Haha. Exactly.


Although, absurdity can be fun.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

All of the major network news broadcasts have high accuracy ratings. In any case, what I'm talking about here is perception. A lot more people get their information from the major broadcast network news shows than from cable news. And I am encouraged by the indications that the major network reporting on this does not make things look good for Trump and the Republicans.

And that's good because the TRUTH does not look good for Trump and the Republicans. It's a totally corrupt and dishonest President being supported by a totally corrupt and dishonest Party. The truth is that both Trump and the Republican Party need to be eliminated as significant factors in the management of this country.

You can be encouraged all the way down the block to your neighborhood bar for a couple shots of Sazerac, but NOBODY’S perceptions will change. And I say that with 95% confidence.

95%? That’s kinda low, counselor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

You can be encouraged all the way down the block to your neighborhood bar for a couple shots of Sazerac, but NOBODY’S perceptions will change. And I say that with 95% confidence.

95%? That’s kinda low, counselor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I was just turning the Standard statistical “highly confident” percentage level back on old Beauregard StOnge.

[BDKJMU]

NO-ONE told Sondland. Sondland stated such. So if no one told Sondland, it’s a lie for the fake news MSM to say Sondland confirmed a quid-pro quo..

Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Guiliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Guiliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President

Well what Sondland said under oath contradicts what he wrote.

Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don't think you're saying that." Rep. Turner asked.

"I said repeatedly [...] I was presuming," Sondland noted.

After some more grilling, Congressman Turner asked again, "Is it correct, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you've really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/amb-sondla ... esumption/
So “nobody else on this planet” told Sondland quid pro quo would include Guiliani.

[BDKJMU]

Now for the reason I came to this thread: After I watched today I wondered about what the coverage would be like in terms of influencing perception. So I decided to watch ABC World News Tonight. The reason I did that is that it's the highest rated network news nightly news show. The viewerships of network news nightly news shows dwarf any viewerships for comparable time periods on the cable news networks. ABC World News Tonight averages about 8 1/2 million viewers per 30 minute session. The highest rated cable news network show is Sean Hannity. That's sad, I know. But he averages around 3 1/2 million.

The major network news nightly news shows average about 21 million combined.

So I decided to watch ABC World News tonight today to see the impression created with respect to the Sondland testimony. And it was not good for Trump and the Republicans. They dutifully reported what the Republican talking points were. But they also dutifully destroyed them with context such as the fact that, when Trump told Sondland on the phone that there was no quid pro quo, he was already aware of the whistleblower report and the fact that the jig was up.

I have little doubt that the other two major broadcast networks provided similar coverage.

ABC World News- is that the same news broadcast that showed bubbas from Kentucky carrying out an attack against Kurds in Northern Syria?

[BDKJMU]

NO-ONE told Sondland. Sondland stated such. So if no one told Sondland, it’s a lie for the fake news MSM to say Sondland confirmed a quid-pro quo..

I actually watched the hearings as today as I worked from home. Trump told Sondland to talk to Rudy. Then Rudy did the quid pro quo thing. I mean really man.

It's "talk to my lawyer." Then the lawyer says "quid pro quo."

Do you seriously, at this point, doubt that Trump was leveraging US aid in order to get the Ukrainians to announce that they were opening an investigation into Biden. I mean seriously. When you look at yourself in the mirror do YOU seriously doubt that?

I doubt that Trump did anything illegal on that phone call.

[Ibanez]

Well what Sondland said under oath contradicts what he wrote.

Is that your testimony today, Ambassador Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations to the aid? Because I don't think you're saying that." Rep. Turner asked.

"I said repeatedly [...] I was presuming," Sondland noted.

After some more grilling, Congressman Turner asked again, "Is it correct, nobody else on this planet told you that Donald Trump was tying this aid to the investigations? Because if your answer is yes, then the chairman's wrong and the headline on CNN is wrong. No one this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations, yes or no?"

"Yes," Sondland replied.

"So, you've really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations?" Turner asked.

"Other than my own presumption," Sondland said.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/amb-sondla ... esumption/
So “nobody else on this planet” told Sondland quid pro quo would include Guiliani.

Why are you focusing on the words and not the actions?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

This is where the left leaning media has you messed up and you’re in danger of falling into the conspiracy trap yet again, Reek.

If Trump predicated military aid on Ukraine opening an investigation on Burisma, and the son of his political rival *wasn’t* working for Burisma, then a quid pro quo was not only not inappropriate, but actually a common diplomatic tool. I live in a country where a 2014 coup was tied to a cessation in some military assistance, and the reestablishment of that aid is directly tied to a return to democratic governance.

So focusing solely on a quid pro quo only is a trap (which you appear to have already fallen into). Trying to show that there was no quid pro quo is also a trap, and the WH and House GOP members already fell into that one.

The focus needs to be on whether or not opening an investigation specifically into Burisma for the purpose of delivering dirt on Hunter/Joe Biden was a part of the attempt, because it then (and only then) becomes criminal extortion.

Hell, if House Dems focus on that, we might kill two birds with one stone... Trump is censured, and we can find out what I need to do to get a foreign gas company to pay me 50,000 per month.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Honest Question - was the aide in that 2014 coup tied to a political favor? Was dirt on an American citizen part of the negotiations?

And I’ve been clear on using quid pro quo for foreign aide - it’s ok when we’re asking for something that serves the national interest.


And I happen to agree with you - if they stop focusing on the aid, and more on the investigations and Biden and PROVING that then the Dems would have something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course not - that’s my point.

If you take the Bidens out of the equation then the demand for an investigation in return for aid is perfectly normal (although it should be a broader demand).

That’s why the focus needs to be on the Bidens, and whether Trump was expecting dirt in return for the aid. If the House cannot establish that then this is going to be very shaky. They need to pinch Giuliani for some kind of criminal activity and then turn him, or they need to subpoena Bolton stat. I said the same thing a couple weeks ago. If anybody received instructions from Trump to demand a probe into Biden specifically as a condition for the aid, it would have been one of those two. It would be easier to get it out of Bolton


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CID1990]

NO-ONE told Sondland. Sondland stated such. So if no one told Sondland, it’s a lie for the fake news MSM to say Sondland confirmed a quid-pro quo..

Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Guiliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Guiliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President

Bottom line: White House needs to let Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and anyone else with direct knowledge testify.

For some reason, the people that could clear him... aren't allowed to testify.

Sure they are. Schiff needs to issue Bolton’s subpoena


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skjellyfetti]

Bottom line: White House needs to let Mulvaney, Guiliani, Bolton, and anyone else with direct knowledge testify.

For some reason, the people that could clear him... aren't allowed to testify.

Sure they are. Schiff needs to issue Bolton’s subpoena


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I posted it earlier... if you missed it, it's understandable. Been a busy thread today.

But, the judge will rule by Monday on McGahn's case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/1 ... ena-071653

Don't see why there's a rush and a need to subpoena him before then.

And, pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if Bolton's holding out for McGahn's outcome helped move up the ruling? If so... a McGahn - Bolton doubleheader would be worth the couple week's wait.

[SeattleGriz]

Honest Question - was the aide in that 2014 coup tied to a political favor? Was dirt on an American citizen part of the negotiations?

And I’ve been clear on using quid pro quo for foreign aide - it’s ok when we’re asking for something that serves the national interest.


And I happen to agree with you - if they stop focusing on the aid, and more on the investigations and Biden and PROVING that then the Dems would have something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course not - that’s my point.

If you take the Bidens out of the equation then the demand for an investigation in return for aid is perfectly normal (although it should be a broader demand).

That’s why the focus needs to be on the Bidens, and whether Trump was expecting dirt in return for the aid. If the House cannot establish that then this is going to be very shaky. They need to pinch Giuliani for some kind of criminal activity and then turn him, or they need to subpoena Bolton stat. I said the same thing a couple weeks ago. If anybody received instructions from Trump to demand a probe into Biden specifically as a condition for the aid, it would have been one of those two. It would be easier to get it out of Bolton


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So let's just say Rudy's version is true and the Ukrainians have proof old Joe and his son were corrupt. How does that square with Trump asking for the Bidens to be investigated?

My only hurdle is that there has to be a hole somewhere in the Dems defense.

Blasey Ford: sexist and brutal to ask her tough questions. FBI: Retribution for investigating FISA abuses. Bidens: Attacking your political opponent.

Seems the only thing allowed when accused by Dems is to just sit there and take it, otherwise you prove your guilt. There is always some weak line of defense as to why you can't question a Dem.

[houndawg]

Can anyone explain a few things to me? I don't get into the politics like you guys do but when I watch this Sondland guy say things like, "Trump never told me aid was conditioned, that was my own personal guess" under oath in front of congress"

"I have said about 19 times, Trump did not ask me about the Bidens."

Coupled with the fact that during more than seven hours of questioning on Oct. 17, both Republicans and Democrats repeatedly asked Sondland whether aid was part of the White House quid pro quo. Numerous times, he said he could not recall.

How is this damning to Trump does it not exonerate him? The democrats were waiting for this guy to deliver and all he did was keep making it look like a waste of time for everyone involved right?

Am I missing something here?

You're missing the obvious:

Where there is smoke there is fire.

FIFY

[Ibanez]

I’ve argued that from the beginning. Trump saying Biden, Burisma, Crowdstrike instead of something related to security or diplomacy screwed him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

Of course not - that’s my point.

If you take the Bidens out of the equation then the demand for an investigation in return for aid is perfectly normal (although it should be a broader demand).

That’s why the focus needs to be on the Bidens, and whether Trump was expecting dirt in return for the aid. If the House cannot establish that then this is going to be very shaky. They need to pinch Giuliani for some kind of criminal activity and then turn him, or they need to subpoena Bolton stat. I said the same thing a couple weeks ago. If anybody received instructions from Trump to demand a probe into Biden specifically as a condition for the aid, it would have been one of those two. It would be easier to get it out of Bolton


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So let's just say Rudy's version is true and the Ukrainians have proof old Joe and his son were corrupt. How does that square with Trump asking for the Bidens to be investigated?

My only hurdle is that there has to be a hole somewhere in the Dems defense.

Blasey Ford: sexist and brutal to ask her tough questions. FBI: Retribution for investigating FISA abuses. Bidens: Attacking your political opponent.

Seems the only thing allowed when accused by Dems is to just sit there and take it, otherwise you prove your guilt. There is always some weak line of defense as to why you can't question a Dem.

Why’s an investigation into a political opponent pertinent in the release of aid?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CAA Flagship]

So, what inning are we in and what's the score?

[CID1990]

Sure they are. Schiff needs to issue Bolton’s subpoena


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I posted it earlier... if you missed it, it's understandable. Been a busy thread today.

But, the judge will rule by Monday on McGahn's case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/1 ... ena-071653

Don't see why there's a rush and a need to subpoena him before then.

And, pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if Bolton's holding out for McGahn's outcome helped move up the ruling? If so... a McGahn - Bolton doubleheader would be worth the couple week's wait.

I don’t know why you think Bolton’s testimony is tied to the McGahn decision.

Bolton will not testify outside of a subpoena, and that subpoena will also be challenged. The Dems should know this but multitasking doesn’t seem to be in their wheelhouse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

So, what inning are we in and what's the score?

Both sides are claiming victory. But I’ve learned a few things.

I learned yesterday that I can theoretically break the law as long as I dont say the magic words.

I learned yesterday that Sondland would sell out his mother.

I learned that having a country investigate a conspiracy theory about my political opponent is acceptable.

I learned that, after listening to C-Span, there are a LOT of call ins from NC and that the callers have no clue how impeachment’s work or how to speak properly and conjugate verbs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibanez]

I posted it earlier... if you missed it, it's understandable. Been a busy thread today.

But, the judge will rule by Monday on McGahn's case.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/1 ... ena-071653

Don't see why there's a rush and a need to subpoena him before then.

And, pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if Bolton's holding out for McGahn's outcome helped move up the ruling? If so... a McGahn - Bolton doubleheader would be worth the couple week's wait.

I don’t know why you think Bolton’s testimony is tied to the McGahn decision.

Bolton will not testify outside of a subpoena, and that subpoena will also be challenged. The Dems should know this but multitasking doesn’t seem to be in their wheelhouse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The closest we will get to Bolton testifying is Fiona Hill...and she is not afraid to push back on this bs Ukraine conspiracy theory.


In the end, Dems will impeach, the Senate will acquit, Republicans will claim victory and America will be more polarized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BDKJMU]

So, what inning are we in and what's the score?

Both sides are claiming victory. But I’ve learned a few things.

I learned yesterday that I can theoretically break the law as long as I dont say the magic words.

I learned yesterday that Sondland would sell out his mother.

I learned that having a country investigate a conspiracy theory about my political opponent is acceptable.

I learned that, after listening to C-Span, there are a LOT of call ins from NC and that the callers have no clue how impeachment’s work or how to speak properly and conjugate verbs.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, its a conspiracy theory. Its not like Biden is on camera bragging about having the prosecutor general fired that was investigating his son‘s company for corruption..

[CID1990]

I don’t know why you think Bolton’s testimony is tied to the McGahn decision.

Bolton will not testify outside of a subpoena, and that subpoena will also be challenged. The Dems should know this but multitasking doesn’t seem to be in their wheelhouse


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The closest we will get to Bolton testifying is Fiona Hill...and she is not afraid to push back on this bs Ukraine conspiracy theory.


In the end, Dems will impeach, the Senate will acquit, Republicans will claim victory and America will be more polarized.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not so sure. Bolton wants to testify and he has hinted that he knows a lot more about Ukraine than just this.

The Dems should have torn up the courier service serving him with a subpoena already


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk