It was a perfect shooting, totally appropriate.
I’m guessing a right-leaning reliable source like The Hill would be acceptable. To my knowledge, the have yet to publish the supposed name.
Ditka, there’s a far cry from disliking Breitbart as a source - something all rational people should do - and declaring another poster only wants ‘left-wing sources’.
This looks a great deal like sea-lioning. Please don’t do so in the future.
No warning issued.
"We need to interview the person who called 911. To talk to him. About stuff. We heard he might be a Democrat "
“We need to know this person’s political party before we can decide if the bullet used by the killer was real or not. And if the victim is genuinely dead.”
They back Trump because the people who will decide whether or not they keep their jobs back Trump. They will do so until they can get rid of him without losing their jobs. I’m sure the Republicans who are enabling Trump would love to kick him to the curb for the sake of their party, but they need to carry on pretending Trump’s fit for office to stave off the wrath of the deplorable types.
For my convenience, could you hash/rehash your general position with regards to the impeachment of Donald Trump? Actually, let me save you some trouble and reconstruct it for you.
Looking over your posts, it would appear that at one point you thought Mr. Zelensky mentioning his stay at Trump properties does not constitute a bribe ([POST=21881419]post #308[/POST]). You thought the release of $250 million from FY2018 and the promise of an additional $141.5 million in military aid did not constitute a bribe ([POST=21882033]post #434[/POST]).
You did not think the July 25 phone call memorandum demonstrates quid pro quo (posts [POST=21881455]#317[/POST], [POST=21881776]#370[/POST], [POST=21881860]#390[/POST], [POST=21881999]#420[/POST], [POST=21882005]#424[/POST], [POST=21883488]#705[/POST], [POST=21883614]#731[/POST], [POST=21915604]#2639[/POST], [POST=21915634]#2644[/POST], [POST=21915645]#2648[/POST], [POST=21915671]#2652[/POST], [POST=21915761]#2659[/POST], [POST=21915811]#2667[/POST], [POST=21915927]#2685[/POST], [POST=21919830]#2826[/POST], [POST=21920192]#2844[/POST], [POST=21920257]#2847[/POST]).
You did not think the president committed treason (posts [POST=21882880]#569[/POST], [POST=21883012]#595[/POST]).
You did not think requesting a foreign government to investigate an American is necessarily impeachable ([POST=21915797]post #2665[/POST]). You also implied that you disagree with the notion that any action that “might benefit the president in a re-election campaign” is necessarily “using his office for personal gain” ([POST=21920260]#2848[/POST]).
You may think the President would need to commit a crime to be impeached, I can’t tell (posts [POST=21915797]#2665[/POST] and [POST=21915813]#2668[/POST]). You did not think the President violated campaign finance law ([POST=21915861]#2676[/POST]). You were not necessarily concerned with potential impoundment of Congressionally authorized funds (posts [POST=21916248]#2705[/POST], [POST=21916291]#2708[/POST]). Neither were you concerned about the delay between the phone call and the approval of Javelin missile purchases (posts [POST=21916280]#2707[/POST], [POST=21919607]#2814[/POST]), although you admit that the timing of the approval “looks somewhat suspicious” ([POST=21919815]post #2825[/POST]).
You were once interested in hearing more about the whistleblower but that was before basically the whistleblower and inspector general reports were released to the public ([POST=21881746]post #357[/POST]). You have linked to reporting by The New York Times and The Hill regarding a Burisma->Rosemont Seneca->Biden/Archer->Burisma connection ([POST=21881833]post #382[/POST]), and presumably think there may be a legitimate reason for the United States and Ukraine to investigate Hunter/Joe Biden (posts [POST=21883350]#672[/POST], [POST=21883379]#682[/POST], [POST=21883669]#739[/POST]). You also justified such an investigation by asserting that Joe Biden “pushed HARD for the firing of the prosecutor overseeing” Burisma ([POST=21883444]post #697[/POST]).
You laid out a couple cases where you might support impeachment in [POST=21883350]post #672[/POST]: if evidence emerges that the president asked Ukraine “to manufacture dirt” on Biden, as in making stuff up or lying (but you said the transcript was not evidence of this, see posts [POST=21915604]#2639[/POST], [POST=21915649]#2649[/POST]); also if evidence emerges that Mr. Trump is actually taking orders from Russia. You would also support impeachment if compelling evidence emerged proving that Mr. Trump ordered the assassination of one or more of his enemies ([POST=21883367]post #677[/POST]).
I agree with some of the positions you espouse(d), and disagree with others. But before we get into that, do you still hold all of the views above? Has anything changed, or would you like to add anything?
~Max
Plus, he told the 911 operator that I was committing armed bank robbery but the bank video clearly shows I had no weapon when the teller gave me the cash…
Why is that useful, and to whom?
Agreed.
Now if the whistleblower had first-hand information that was being used to support an article of impeachment, I would want them to testify. Perhaps as themselves, not as the whistleblower. I see no reason whatsoever for the name to be outed.
Fox News had a segment about this last Friday I think. I was listening to it while my local music station was on commercial break. They brought in two dudes, one to talk about ethics and the other to talk about law. The host said he’s pretty sure he knows who it is and wants to know whether Fox should air the name. I think Judge Napolitano was the law guy. Judge said don’t out the whistleblower unless you are 100% sure who it is, otherwise you might face a lawsuit. If you’re right though, eg: a Congressman leaks it from the floor, freedom of the press and the Pentagon Papers and such. Carefully notes that is only the legal side, not ethical side. Ethics guy weasel-words himself out of saying you really have no business releasing the name at all, and it is audibly difficult for him to articulate that. Host squeezes him for some situation where they can release the name. The name itself is newsworthy isn’t it? Ethics guy squirms, “Well…”, and manages to say, if you aren’t 100% sure, definitely don’t do it.
Just your dose of the right-wing media for those who aren’t in the know.
~Max
And I have the right to confront my accuser during the police investigation. At his home. With my friends.
Propagandists
I was also listening to NPR’s coverage of the hearing today, right before they kicked the Ambassador and State dept witnesses out. I have no idea what Nunes cares about calling the Bidens or the whistleblower. I would be all on the DoJ re: the existence and propriety of a Biden investigation. Focusing so much on the phone call and ignoring the larger picture doesn’t seem to matter much either, in my understanding the easiest quid pro quo claim Democrats can push is investigations for white house meeting. This is pretty well attested to with evidence leaked to date, but I guess the Democrats aren’t pushing it so the Republicans aren’t responding to it.
If I were the Republicans, I would be pushing for a narrative that says the investigations are somehow justified and only coincidentally create the appearance of impropriety. But that would require exculpatory evidence from the administration, which is yet to be seen (if it exists).
The bribery claim turns on the same issue. Impoundment, however, is something I can’t come up with a counter to (yet).
~Max
Im pretty certain the accusers are going to be The People of the United States of America.
That’s laughably wrong. You do realize that the anonymous tip is a staple in law enforcement and governments at all levels actively encourage and solicit anonymous tips.
https://www.crimestoppersusa.org/contact/submit-a-tip/
Trump is a national security risk determined to base foreign policy not on the information provided to hm by the scores or experts and analysts retained to inform him, but whether or not the particular
foreign leader likes him. And once again he has fallen for a Russian disinformation campaign. It’s really a national security disaster when you think about it.
Zelensky could sink his presidency with one press conference. All he would have to do is publicly complain about feeling extorted,and possibly confirm the new reporting that Parnas and Fruman made a trip to the Ukraine to make it clear that he needed to open an investigation to get foreign aid.
Anyway, it is fun to watch.
Right. Say we assign the most ridiculous characteristics imaginable to the whistleblower - - he’s a lifelong Republican, decorated Navy SEAL, wounded in Iraq, card carrying NRA member, 4th generation US patriot, always Trumper who donated to Trump’s campaign and attended every rally he could - - but he agonized over what he saw was an ethics violation and, after much prayer and reflection, decided to file a whistleblower report against his hero.
Would that convince HD to take it seriously? Or would he just say “hmm, that’s interesting” and move on to some other reason for why the impeachment inquiry is a sham?
The Republicans can never claim this, because the so-called president asking another country to investigate a US citizen for him is not justified. If Trump had any idea that Hunter Biden should be investigated for something, to whom do you suppose he should have taken such a request?
Well certainly not the traitorous FBI, nor the Deep State National Intelligence Agency. And obviously not the Un-American Department of Justice.
You can’t trust any of these. The only one Trump could trust to do his investigating was the newly elected president of Ukraine. Who was hoping for Trump to release congressionally approved military aid to help in the fight against Russians. Well, at least he trusted him to ANNOUNCE that he was investigating. That was clearly the important part, for some reason.
Can’t quote Ann Hedonia:
That’s laughably wrong. You do realize that the anonymous tip is a staple in law enforcement and governments at all levels actively encourage and solicit anonymous tips.
https://www.crimestoppersusa.org/contact/submit-a-tip/
Wai just a minute. Those signs on the highway telling people to report drunk drivers don’t contain fine print about the necessity to identify oneself and to be available for a grand unmasking on right wing lunatic “news” websites?
I think that’s a pretty good (really good, actually) summary of my thoughts on the matter. I can’t readily think of anything that’s really changed from that, nor of anything I’d like to add off the top of my head.