Two wrongs makes a right? For three years Schiff told every camera, and he loves cameras, that he had evidence of Trump colluding with Putin. Only to show none of it. Poor Franky, here, was so convinced, he still can't let go. Schiff began his OWN inquiry by reading a statement that was wholly fictional. And now, this? Presidents come and go. Most of them are not very good, some even based their highest achievement on bold face lies(hello there Barack!). Voters let it slide because that's the nature of the beast. But, when the political score settling is used to masquerade as justice, when the Leader of the House calls the choice of 63 million Americans an "imposter", that IS an existential threat to the Republic. So, you say"but Trump..." Here's a news flash, America will survive Trump just fine- he has not reached beyond the scope of his office. Not yet, anyway. But, the damage inflicted by the Pelosi/Schiff Democrats is here to stay. And the fact that seemingly intelligent people such as yourself don't see that, is proof positive.As opposed to a First Rate Shyster like Trump? Oy gevalt!
Trump is a con man that cons single minded racist putz's like you. He literally has thousands of lawsuits to his name, His bald faced lies are apparent to anyone, including you. But you and the other cultists are invested in his schtick and too weak and feeble minded to have the strength and flexibility to stop... and recognize you have been conned.
I really don't care about Schiff. Although I do admit to having more respect for him than Trump simply based on the impression he leaves by the way he conducts himself with manners, decorum and an even keeled approach. But, hey, maybe I'm not smart as you to recognize the stability and genius of Trump? Let's say Schiff does know the identity of the Whistle Blower? Does that make the substance of the now first hand accounts any less credible? It's like whining that the Prosecutor who is prosecuting your kid (who wouldn't do anything like that, he's a good boy, just aks his momma) is unfair because he won't reveal the name of the innocent by-stander who called 911 for an amberlamps while yo gang banger boy was shooting people under security cameras.
This fakakta thing you are doing. You look like a yutz defending a putz! :yo:
Schiff exposed his own lie during Vindman testimony
- Thread starter Dutch Oven
- Start date
Barr essentially lied about the results of the Mueller investigation and we are still only just now hearing details that connect Trump to Putin, just last week with the Stone trial, for instance.
Trump will be impeached for trying the same tricks again the day after the Mueller report came out.
Would you back a dem president who uses the office the same way Trump does?
You're quite right I stopped the playback after the first endless minute.
If I wanted to watch other people at their tedious labour I'd already have watched it real-time, on the day. As I said earlier, I lost my taste for wasting time that way back when better people were doing a better job on the man who had actually earned his Presidency, then betrayed it to further his re-election. Your concise summary of what you observed took far less than seven minutes and nine seconds to read and absorb, although I disagreed with the conclusion you drew from the facts you presented. Most importantly, unlike the performers insulated behind their YouTube screens, you're here to be replied to. I did. To you, not to them.
Did you leave out something pertinent? Or was your conclusion based on the sounds and sights of performance, not the logical deduction outlined?
The video is the answer to your speculation that Schiff was merely issuing a caution. There was no basis for issuing such a caution in the exact context that it was made. Jordan had merely asked who the witness spoke with at a certain point in time. There had been no testimony from anyone tying that specific conversation to the identity of the whistle blower. Of course, it might be possible that Schiff is just issuing these cautions throughout the hearing randomly, with no rhyme or reason, but I don't find that theory credible.
You still haven't pointed out that you grew up around US Military people.
And ohh...he's a clown now? lol
He's the clown? Not Bumald Trump? Not him?
I do. Sorta. Nothing you've said suggests any "random" cautions, in fact you cited it as a consequence of Rep. Jordan "…ask[ing] the witness to identify those he had spoken to". Since the whistleblower's identity is deliberately being withheld, it would be only sensible and prudent to remind a questioner of that decided Committee policy whenever names are being sought.
But that in no way 'proves' or even indicates that the Chair, or any one else on the Committee knows the name. As a matter of personal speculation, I'd be surprised if they didn't, but my speculation's of no general interest here.
-------
PS: Thanks for the pleasant times and engaging back and forths you've shared with me since a good while back. You've been fun and challenging to argue with, and seeing your name on a thread always lights a spark. I was gonna take a serious break at an even 25K, but I think I'll do it now and leave the Last Post hanging.
Stay warm, Dutch
From what I understand, the whistleblowers identity is fairly well-known. I also think the Senate would demand the whistleblower be publicly revealed and testify at a trial.*
It seems this is all a part of how Schiff has arbitrarily structured the House inquiry. What am I missing?
* One can repeat the political spiel about how statutes protect the whistleblower's identity. There is absolutely no precedence for such. Washington whistleblowers are well-known. They become heroes or goats to different people. I guess if Schiff resists a Senate request it would be decided by a court. It won't be decided by Dems or liberal media outrage.
It seems this is all a part of how Schiff has arbitrarily structured the House inquiry. What am I missing?
* One can repeat the political spiel about how statutes protect the whistleblower's identity. There is absolutely no precedence for such. Washington whistleblowers are well-known. They become heroes or goats to different people. I guess if Schiff resists a Senate request it would be decided by a court. It won't be decided by Dems or liberal media outrage.
Nothing biased about the hearings. The Whistleblower once again is protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act that was enacted to protect the identity and the security of the Whistleblower. The Democrats have every right to do so. Why can the hypocritical Republicans not demand that the Whitehouse staff and The President himself testify in order to give all the "first hand" information? They know that when they testify under oath, then it is game, set and match against the President and Vindman's testimony clearly spelled out.
Gordon Sondland's Testimony Is Devastating for Trump
Here's why.
By Greg Walters and Cameron Joseph
Nov 20 2019, 12:50pm
WASHINGTON — Gordon Sondland was billed as the most dangerous witness against President Trump this week: And he did not disappoint.
In gripping testimony at the impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill Wednesday, the Trump-appointed EU ambassador confirmed a quid pro quo at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment case, and said Trump and his inner circle knew about everything he was doing to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump’s Democratic enemies.
Sondland even confirmed placing an unsecured cell phone call to Trump from a restaurant in downtown Kyiv to say that the investigations Trump wanted were all set to happen — adding that, yeah, he probably told Trump that Ukraine’s president “loves your ass,” because that's the way they talked to each other.
“That sounds like something I would say,” Sondland affirmed. “That’s how President Trump and I communicate. A lot of four-letter words. In this case, three-letter.”
That account flies in the face of Trump’s previous insistence that he barely knows “the gentleman” — which Trump repeated at the White House Wednesday, saying, “I don’t know him very well.”
Sondland’s Wednesday morning bombshells promise to shake up the impeachment case, forcing Republicans to adjust their talking points and Trump’s top officials to rebut his claims that they knew all about his actions to press Ukraine to launch investigations into the Bidens and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election.
Even Ken Starr, the lead investigator of former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment drama who has largely defended Trump in recent times, called Sondland’s testimony damaging. This morning, Starr admitted things have changed.
“We’ve gotten closer to the president,” Starr told Fox News. “It doesn’t look great for the president, substantively.”
Bad News Sondland
Trump’s allies in the House couldn't even staunch the flow of damaging information. Instead, at one point, they instigated one of the most explosive declarations of Sondland’s testimony.
When the Republicans’ counsel asked about the “irregular channel” with Ukraine, Sondland shot back: “I’m not sure how someone could characterize something as an ‘irregular channel’ when you’re talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, [and] the Secretary of Energy.”
“I don’t know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel, and they to be the regular channel, when it’s the leadership that makes the decisions,” he added.
That appeared to be Sondland’s position throughout: “Everyone was in the loop” about what he was doing.
Sondland’s testimony looks like especially bad news for:
President Trump. Sondland provided firsthand testimony of Trump’s involvement. Republicans have been arguing it didn’t exist.
Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President. Sondland said explicitly that he warned Pence that military aid to Ukraine might be tied to investigations, suggesting Pence knew much more than he’s admitted.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer.Sondland complained repeatedly and bitterly about being forced to work with Giuliani on pushing Ukraine to launch investigations, even though Giuliani had no official government role.
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s Chief of Staff. Sondland presented emails showing he was in direct touch with Mulvaney before the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, and that Zelensky had said “he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone.’” Mulvaney replied that he would help set up the call.
Mike Pompeo, Trump’s Secretary of State. Sondland showed he repeatedly emailed Pompeo and his top aide multiple times during the summer keeping them apprised of his activities. Pompeo was copied on Sondland’s email chain with Mulvaney. In mid-August, Sondland let Pompeo know that he’d negotiated a statement from Zelensky that would “hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation” to the White House. Later, Pompeo approved Sondland’s efforts to set up a direct meeting between Trump and Zelensky.
Sondland said he assumed any direction about investigations coming from Giuliani was really coming from Trump.
“When the president says, ‘Talk to my personal attorney,’ and then Mr. Giuliani makes certain requests or demands, you assume it’s coming from the president,” Sondland said.
Sondland even provided fresh evidence for an article of impeachment against Trump for obstructing the congressional investigation, Starr told Fox, by noting that he hasn’t been able to access to his own records from the administration.
“This, obviously, has been one of those bombshell days,” Starr said.
The limits of Sondland
Sondland’s testimony still left holes for Trump’s defenders to use in their efforts to rebut his narrative, however.
Sondland claimed he didn’t realize that an investigation of “Burisma” (where Hunter Biden had a seat on the board) was the same thing as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden’s family, a claim Democrats argue should have been clear ever since Giuliani began to make the case for investigating Biden in Ukraine publicly last spring.
Sondland also said that no one else told him to explicitly connect military assistance to Ukraine to the announcement of investigations against Democrats — that he made that connection himself before presenting it to a Ukrainian official in September.
“I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement [of investigations],” Sondland said.
“The aid was my own personal guess,” Sondland said. “Two plus two equals four.”
https://youtu.be/1RnksXiDq9g
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43k9kn/gordon-sondlands-testimony-is-devastating-for-trump
Here's why.
By Greg Walters and Cameron Joseph
Nov 20 2019, 12:50pm
WASHINGTON — Gordon Sondland was billed as the most dangerous witness against President Trump this week: And he did not disappoint.
In gripping testimony at the impeachment hearings on Capitol Hill Wednesday, the Trump-appointed EU ambassador confirmed a quid pro quo at the heart of Democrats’ impeachment case, and said Trump and his inner circle knew about everything he was doing to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump’s Democratic enemies.
Sondland even confirmed placing an unsecured cell phone call to Trump from a restaurant in downtown Kyiv to say that the investigations Trump wanted were all set to happen — adding that, yeah, he probably told Trump that Ukraine’s president “loves your ass,” because that's the way they talked to each other.
“That sounds like something I would say,” Sondland affirmed. “That’s how President Trump and I communicate. A lot of four-letter words. In this case, three-letter.”
That account flies in the face of Trump’s previous insistence that he barely knows “the gentleman” — which Trump repeated at the White House Wednesday, saying, “I don’t know him very well.”
Sondland’s Wednesday morning bombshells promise to shake up the impeachment case, forcing Republicans to adjust their talking points and Trump’s top officials to rebut his claims that they knew all about his actions to press Ukraine to launch investigations into the Bidens and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election.
Even Ken Starr, the lead investigator of former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment drama who has largely defended Trump in recent times, called Sondland’s testimony damaging. This morning, Starr admitted things have changed.
“We’ve gotten closer to the president,” Starr told Fox News. “It doesn’t look great for the president, substantively.”
Bad News Sondland
Trump’s allies in the House couldn't even staunch the flow of damaging information. Instead, at one point, they instigated one of the most explosive declarations of Sondland’s testimony.
When the Republicans’ counsel asked about the “irregular channel” with Ukraine, Sondland shot back: “I’m not sure how someone could characterize something as an ‘irregular channel’ when you’re talking to the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the National Security Advisor, the Chief of Staff of the White House, [and] the Secretary of Energy.”
“I don’t know how they can consider us to be the irregular channel, and they to be the regular channel, when it’s the leadership that makes the decisions,” he added.
That appeared to be Sondland’s position throughout: “Everyone was in the loop” about what he was doing.
Sondland’s testimony looks like especially bad news for:
President Trump. Sondland provided firsthand testimony of Trump’s involvement. Republicans have been arguing it didn’t exist.
Mike Pence, Trump’s Vice President. Sondland said explicitly that he warned Pence that military aid to Ukraine might be tied to investigations, suggesting Pence knew much more than he’s admitted.
Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s lawyer.Sondland complained repeatedly and bitterly about being forced to work with Giuliani on pushing Ukraine to launch investigations, even though Giuliani had no official government role.
Mick Mulvaney, Trump’s Chief of Staff. Sondland presented emails showing he was in direct touch with Mulvaney before the July 25 Trump-Zelensky call, and that Zelensky had said “he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone.’” Mulvaney replied that he would help set up the call.
Mike Pompeo, Trump’s Secretary of State. Sondland showed he repeatedly emailed Pompeo and his top aide multiple times during the summer keeping them apprised of his activities. Pompeo was copied on Sondland’s email chain with Mulvaney. In mid-August, Sondland let Pompeo know that he’d negotiated a statement from Zelensky that would “hopefully make the boss happy enough to authorize an invitation” to the White House. Later, Pompeo approved Sondland’s efforts to set up a direct meeting between Trump and Zelensky.
Sondland said he assumed any direction about investigations coming from Giuliani was really coming from Trump.
“When the president says, ‘Talk to my personal attorney,’ and then Mr. Giuliani makes certain requests or demands, you assume it’s coming from the president,” Sondland said.
Sondland even provided fresh evidence for an article of impeachment against Trump for obstructing the congressional investigation, Starr told Fox, by noting that he hasn’t been able to access to his own records from the administration.
“This, obviously, has been one of those bombshell days,” Starr said.
The limits of Sondland
Sondland’s testimony still left holes for Trump’s defenders to use in their efforts to rebut his narrative, however.
Sondland claimed he didn’t realize that an investigation of “Burisma” (where Hunter Biden had a seat on the board) was the same thing as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden’s family, a claim Democrats argue should have been clear ever since Giuliani began to make the case for investigating Biden in Ukraine publicly last spring.
Sondland also said that no one else told him to explicitly connect military assistance to Ukraine to the announcement of investigations against Democrats — that he made that connection himself before presenting it to a Ukrainian official in September.
“I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement [of investigations],” Sondland said.
“The aid was my own personal guess,” Sondland said. “Two plus two equals four.”
https://youtu.be/1RnksXiDq9g
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/43k9kn/gordon-sondlands-testimony-is-devastating-for-trump
Except it's not a whistleblower case, it's a leaker. The alleged whistleblower had no first hand knowledge because they weren't on the call. Furthermore, even if it were a whistleblower case the Act doesn't guarantee anonymity.
Okay then, please cite the passage in the Whistleblower Protection Act that protects the identity of the whistleblower. Personally, I wouldn't be so eager to repeat things I hear from the media when such an obvious point of objective reference exists. That's just me.
It is a Whistleblower and not a "Leaker". Show us where this individual is considered to be so??
The reason that the Democrats want to protect the identity could be due to threats against this particular Whistleblower's life.. They are within their prerogatives to do so. The President has already attacked him on twitter, and this could be a real threat to his well being from the right wingers.
But explain why the Whitehouse aides including the President should be protected from testifying when subpoenaed by Congress?? Especially if they are the ones that witnessed all the calls and Trump's discussions etc with regards to the Ukraine Scandal!!
Who cares about who the whistleblower is?
Sondland just torched every Trump and repub defence.
The FBI is now even investigating the DOJ to see why they tried to kill the complaint instead of act on it.
You must have been watching highlights from Resistance TV. Sondland was all over the place and inconsistent under questioning. He specifically said there was no quid pro quo as it pertained to the military aid.
Cable news can artfully glean the nuggets they want. The best part of the day for Schiff was when Sondland read his prepared opening remarks. After that, it became very confusing. Sondland was a very bizarre witness.
Sondland specifically stated that there was quid pro quo, that Trump ordered it and everyone knew about it.
Where Sondland's testimony appeared to diverge from the WH position, it was clearly established that Sondland was just offering his opinion, not factual evidence, and almost all of those opinions were not properly informed.
However, where Sondland testified about facts within his knowledge, his testimony supports the WH position.
Not sure what the media means by a term like "torching", but it clearly doesn't mean "disproved through reliable evidence".
You would have to cite Sondland's testimony for me. I don't remember Sondland saying anything was ordered by Trump.
