Lt. Col. Vindman’s testimony also appears to contradict Rick Perry’s version of events.
Ken Starr:
Yes, THAT Ken Starr.
There’s a whole lot of “Do as I say, not as I do,” going around with Republicans who were responsible for the Clinton impeachment. He advocates censuring Trump at most, because impeachment is bad for our democracy. Unless you lie about a blowjob, I guess.
-from The Washington Post
Doesn’t this make him a quadruple agent?
2004 Swift Boating against Kerry.
You are posing this question to potential US voters. So giving him the benefit of the doubt right now, involves ignoring:
Birtherism, mongering
Divestment, lying about it, not doing it.
Tax returns, lying and failing to produce
mexico’s wall, lying and fantasism.
All of this was before the election. There is plenty after but you don’t need it. He has broken any trust he might have had with any normal person by lying at each point.
So we have to accept his electoral victory, but our cooperation is conditional on his being clean. Joe Biden for instance has nothing to do with this and we don’t have the civic interest in him that we do in the POTUS. So there is anohter untruth hidden in plain sight in this story: dt and jb are in diffferent lanes in american life and one of them we need to worry about, while the other is pretty bland. Bringing jb into it is just b.s. That’s the reasonable take.
The only soldiers Republicans honor are the ones that don’t disagree with them.
Rick Perry was also named in Amb. Taylor’s testimony as one of the people involved in the irregular, unofficial channel of diplomacy with Ukraine. Perry’s announcement of his resignation right after the Ukraine story broke is highly suspicious. With him being somewhat of a nationally known politician, I’m surprised there haven’t been more questions, attention, and news stories about his involvement in this scandal.
Hopefully the witness will agree to testify when the three subpoenas are issued.
You know, I’ve started to think about impeachment as closer to a really, really serious meeting with HR potentially leading to the subject’s firing. It’s ultimately what we’re talking about here; firing the CEO because he or she is not acting in the company’s best interests. Maybe some of the acts in question violate a law, but an illegal act is not a necessary predicate to letting someone go.
The Ukraine call transcript, damning as it is, was still sanitized for release. According to yesterday’s Lt. Col. testimony.
**“(CNN) — **The National Security Council’s top Ukraine expert told House impeachment investigators on Tuesday that he tried to make changes to the White House’s rough transcript of the July phone call between President Donald Trump and Ukraine’s President, including that Trump mentioned tapes of former Vice President Joe Biden, according to a source familiar with the matter.
Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified that one example of his attempts to change the transcript was to include Trump telling Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky there were tapes of Biden, which The New York Times reported occurred where there’s an ellipsis in the transcript that was released. The change was not made. The assertion that some portion of the conversation was replaced by an ellipsis contradicts the White House’s statement in September that the ellipses in the transcript did not represent missing words or phrases. It also contradicts the President who has insisted the transcript the White House released was an exact depiction of the call…”
Someone who has never heard of “shadow of a doubt” might not be from the US. I’m looking at YOU, MaxS.
That was the idea behind impeachment, and all the legal technicalities have just come up as partisan desperation to stay in power. The first removal by way of impeachment was a judge, for being a loud-mouthed drunk–it wasn’t about breaking the law. It was about being unfit for office.
Does anyone even care about who the whistleblower is at this point? Everything they have said has been completely corroborated. We now know that the phone call was even WORSE than the whistleblower reported. The “transcript” was sanitized by removing references to Biden. Sondland and Perry were lying.
The Republicans yesterday tried desperately to smear the latest witness against them. As has been said earlier, if this was an actual criminal investigation, Trump and others would have been arrested for trying to intimidate witnesses. If this were an actual criminal trial, Trump and others would have been arrested for witness tampering.
Republicans do. They want him/her outed so they can make his/her life hell. To protect Donald Trump. It’s all quite honorable.
Only some Republicans. The desperation behind trying so hard to get the name after the horse is already out of the barn is telling me they’re just looking for some way to get revenge.
Charlie Savage, NYT:
It seems the Republican “strategy” at this point is:
- Deny the sky is blue
- Personally attack and smear anyone who says the sky is blue
- Attack the procedures of the “color of the sky committee”
It helps that they have a whole network dedicated to repeating their bullshit lies (or making their own bullshit lies) and a group of uneducated, gullible fools who will mindlessly follow them.
Does it make a difference if dt doesn’t want your presumption?
Given that Perry has a habit of forgetting key details, all I can say is… Oops.