Quote Trump's pullout gave Turkey the green light to inflict massive violence on the Kurds once again. Why risk a war with Turkey? Besides, this is Europe's backyard...why not let them handle it?
Trump's pullout gave Turkey the green light to inflict massive violence on the Kurds once again.
'I don’t mean any disrespect but it must suck to be that dumb'
"What I can tell you about the Trump policy toward Ukraine: It was incoherent, it depends on who you talk to, they seem to be incapable of forming a quid pro quo, so no I find the whole process to be a sham and I'm not going to legitimize it."
“The whistleblower needs to come before Congress as a material witness because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was getting money from corrupt oligarchs. I say tonight to the media — do your job and print his name!”
The whistleblower is already known to everyone in the Beltway and has already been named by multiple media outlets. It's not illegal to reveal his identity.
The reason the Dems don't want to reveal him is that the public will take one look at him and think he's just a whiny millennial. That's why they were so public about Vindman and are keeping this guy squirreled away. I don't blame them. I mean, the guy could be the most legitimate, honest person ever but his look is just awful.
It'd be like if someone whistleblew on Obama and they were a white dude with a shaved head. They could be as right as rain but it would just be an awful look. Sometimes optics like that matter. Vindman looks the part of the responsible and dutiful soldier, so naturally he'll be the public face as opposed to the whistleblower.
The whistleblower is already known to everyone in the Beltway and has already been named by multiple media outlets. It's not illegal to reveal his identity. The reason the Dems don't want to reveal him is that the public will take one look at him and think he's just a whiny millennial. That's why they were so public about Vindman and are keeping this guy squirreled away. I don't blame them. I mean, the guy could be the most legitimate, honest person ever but his look is just awful. It'd be like if someone whistleblew on Obama and they were a white dude with a shaved head. They could be as right as rain but it would just be an awful look. Sometimes optics like that matter. Vindman looks the part of the responsible and dutiful soldier, so naturally he'll be the public face as opposed to the whistleblower.
Quote from: Mr.DeMartino on November 08, 2019, 01:27:19 pmThe whistleblower is already known to everyone in the Beltway and has already been named by multiple media outlets. It's not illegal to reveal his identity. The reason the Dems don't want to reveal him is that the public will take one look at him and think he's just a whiny millennial. That's why they were so public about Vindman and are keeping this guy squirreled away. I don't blame them. I mean, the guy could be the most legitimate, honest person ever but his look is just awful. It'd be like if someone whistleblew on Obama and they were a white dude with a shaved head. They could be as right as rain but it would just be an awful look. Sometimes optics like that matter. Vindman looks the part of the responsible and dutiful soldier, so naturally he'll be the public face as opposed to the whistleblower.It is true...it is not illegal to name the whistleblower, depending on who does the naming....
So yesterday we received official confirmation that Trump did in fact misuse his charity's money, and it's also been reported that his campaign may be running fraudulent contests, for which they could be held liable in criminal and civil courts:https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-campaign-scam-contests-meal-with-president-909188/So far, the excuses I've seen mostly revolve around "biased judicial system" and "biased media". It's everyone's fault but Trump's, of course. It is absolutely amazing to me that people will debase themselves so thoroughly to defend someone who will never repay the favor.
https://congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf
The request shall be in writing... If the request is not in writing it shall be confirmed in writing in ten days...The request shall include the following:(a) the name of the authority conducting the investigation, prosecution or proceeding to which the request relates;(b) a description of the nature and subject matter of the investigation, prosecution or proceeding, and the applicable provisions of law for each offense;(c) a description of the evidence, information, or other assistance sought; and(d) a statement of the purpose for which the evidence, information or other assistance is sought.
Quote from: NorthStar on November 10, 2019, 11:44:34 amhttps://congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdfBy posting this I can only assume that you've come round to reality and dropped the "Trump was innocently pursuing a criminal matter" nonsense. Take a look at Article 4.QuoteThe request shall be in writing... If the request is not in writing it shall be confirmed in writing in ten days...The request shall include the following:(a) the name of the authority conducting the investigation, prosecution or proceeding to which the request relates;(b) a description of the nature and subject matter of the investigation, prosecution or proceeding, and the applicable provisions of law for each offense;(c) a description of the evidence, information, or other assistance sought; and(d) a statement of the purpose for which the evidence, information or other assistance is sought.There are sections of Articles 3 and 5 that Trump may have violated as well. If you haven't changed your mind about Trump's innocence then you've scored a spectacular own goal there, NorthStar.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/oops-adam-schiff-accidentally-leaks-name-of-anti-trump-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-bill-taylors-transcript/
Quote from: NorthStar on November 10, 2019, 11:47:49 amhttps://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/11/oops-adam-schiff-accidentally-leaks-name-of-anti-trump-whistleblower-eric-ciaramella-in-bill-taylors-transcript/Is this your latest conspiracy-theories-are-us go to website?Just looking at their tag line "More Accurate than The New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and MSNBC for Two Years and Counting!" I see that the blog was founded in 2004 so for 13 years they were just peddling lame anti-left talking points. Just another whacky right-wing conduit for those tin hat wearing Fox News viewers.They've got nothing on Rachel Maddow.
Is this your latest conspiracy-theories-are-us go to website?