More Potential Whistleblowers Are Contacting Congress

It is not synonymous with quoting, but it is the appropriate word for when you quote someone - at their request - in written format.

And that's cool that you still think Sondland's quote is helpful to the defense, but you are wrong. It does not prove Trump's innocence nor does it make Trump any more likely to be innocent. In fact, it helps the prosecution by eliminating a potential defensive talking point - I have explained this to you, but I will do so again.

Using a character witness or using an expert opinion on a somewhat subjective issue, i.e. whether a quid pro quo took place, is something that a defense would like to use. In fact, Trump supporters and indeed Trump himself have quoted Sondland's text as proof that Sondland believed that no quid pro quo took place. Now we know that Trump dictated that text and thus, the defense can no longer claim Sondland's testimony as a character/expert witness as to the notion that Sondland believed that a quid pro quo did not take place.

In fact, reports suggest that Sondland will testify that he actually does recognize the existence of a quid pro quo demand from Trump, although it appears he will say that the quid pro quo was the investigation in exchange for the requested meeting.

 

I have it on good authority that on the day Trump raged against Fox News, his AG met with the President of Fox News privately.

 

Trump floats between 41 and 44 percent approval and has failed to ever reach 50% approval.

 

I do remember watching Democrats being willing to hold themselves to a much higher standard than Republicans.

 

You do not get whistleblower status unless your complaint is deemed credible by a Trump appointee.

 

I recommend talking to the Trump appointed ICIG.

 

So if approximately 52% want the House to investigate for possible impeachment, and 49% want the ass REMOVED already before Nov. 2020, what do you suppose the chances are, that this guy is going to convince voters to subject this country of 4 more years of this conduct?

 

Sondland is expected to defend himself by asserting that he was parroting the president's words when he denied the existence of a quid pro quo with Ukraine.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...about-ukraine-work/ar-AAIPAjO?ocid=spartanntp

 

lol@all the whistleblowers coming out of the woodwork

 

I firmly advise you to take a hard look at yourself. I know you don't like being exposed for what you are. How bad is this?

Obama's war on whistleblowers leaves administration insiders unscathed

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...standard-obama-david-petraeus-chelsea-manning

Five key political players enjoy ‘virtual impunity’ – while four lower-level figures are in prison or facing time

Since Barack Obama entered the White House in 2009, his government has waged a war against whistleblowers and official leakers. On his watch, there have been eight prosecutions under the 1917 Espionage Act – more than double those under all previous presidents combined.


Do you approve of Obama's dealings with the whistlblowers? Why do you have double standards?

 

You poor libs are spinning this into utter absurdity.... Let me explain how this works in the real world:

-If Sondland were to testify that Trump said it was QPQ, or that Trump said "no investigation no aid" that'd be bad for Trump.
-As Sondland is testifying that Trump said absolutely no QPQ, not even a hint at aid being tied to an investigation - this can't possibly be bad for Trump and a testimony not helpful to prosecution is ALWAYS helpful to the defense.

Your efforts to have it both ways - Sondland says "QPQ" - Trump loses, Sondland says "No QPQ" - Schiff wins are beyond ludicrous, nonsensical and desperate. This spin though, together with Pelosi's having no votes does show that this Ukraine hoax is a collapsing house of cards. Do keep it up though, boys LOL

 

Shimon Prokupecz

✔ @ShimonPro



And now the DOD officials are coming to the hill: Acting Assistant Secretary for International Security Kathryn Wheelbarger has been requested by the House Intelligence Committee to appear before lawmakers later this week. @rabrowne75



1,496
6:03 PM - Oct 15, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1184228362639818753


494 people are talking about this

 

I don't know which it was, and neither do you. That's why you investigate.

 

You are so right.
Keep it up. Will turn out awesome for you

 

So you ask @MrTLegal a valid question on Obama and whistleblowers, then assume he's going to approve of the way Obama handled them because he obviously disapproves the way Trump does??

Hardly seems fair not tot let him answer before you assume he has a double standard...

 

I make no predictions about trumps chances of winning. I learned that lesson in 2016.

Just vote.

 

I never said nor implied that I approved of the way Obama dealt with whistleblowers. I do not and did not.

But you refused to read or learn from my previous post, so I will quote it again.

I strongly encourage you to take this breaking news and whataboutism and place it directly into a tub full of brown matter.

Now, if you have a comment about the topic of this thread, feel free.

 

I phrased the question appropriately. If trump had any evidence that Biden had committed a crime, then his domestic investigative agency would have been reviewing the case and if they needed assistance from a foreign government, then they would have filed the request.

Instead, Trump - who does not give two shits about corruption - sought campaign assistance from a foreign government in the form of an investigation against his domestic political rival while he simultaneously and unilaterally held up hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid and a requested meeting. And then he tried to hide, lie about, and obstruct the investigation.

Now, if you want to answer the question - without trying to dodge by altering the wording to fit your narrative - you are free to try again.

Is it appropriate for any US President to request a foreign government start an investigation into his domestic political rival?

 

So you support the investigation and that's good.

But remember that impeachment is an political process and one can be impeached for inappropriate, as opposed to purely illegal, behavior.

So again, I am just curious as to your belief on the matter: Is it appropriate for a sitting US President to ask a foreign government to start an investigation into his domestic political rival?

 

Lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol

In the real world, prosecutors work to eliminate potential defenses as part of building their case.

If a defendant's potential defense is made invalid by new evidence (i.e. the alleged opinion of the expert/character witness was dictated by the defendant), then the chance that prosecution will successfully meet their burden of proof is slightly higher.

Putting your argument in red and saying it "can't possibly" is a pathetic and weak effort.

 

I hear you loud and clear buddy, according to you:

- If Sondland were to say yes qpq - prosecution wins

- As Sondland will say absolutely not a qpq - defense loses.

Lol, poor you, having to resort to such obvious illogical gibberish to defend the nonsense you're spinning lol

 

If Sondland says what it's reported he's going to say, it is a QPQ, regardless of what they named it or considered it internally....

But I love that you are already in the prosecution/defense mode, which is even ahead of Adam Schiff at this point...

Mental preparation for Trump supporters is going to be key here...

 

No other pollster tracked by RealClearPolitics came as close to the final results.

"The media created a false narrative about the 2016 presidential campaign, and most polling reinforced it," Rasmussen wrote on its website Thursday. "Our polling showed that issues, not the media-fed controversies, would ultimately decide the election."

Only one polling entity tracked by RealClearPolitics had Trump leading going into Election Day: A collaboration poll between Investor's Business Daily and TechnoMetrica Market Intelligence that had Trump leading by two points.

Most other polls tracked by RealClearPolitics showed Clinton leading by three or four points. The Monmouth University poll showed Clinton leading by six — the furthest off of any poll tracked by RealClearPolitics.

https://thehill.com/media/306721-rasmussen-calls-itself-most-accurate-pollster-of-2016

 

I can't wait for the idiot Democrats in the House to actually vote, actually start a real impeachment inquiry and deal with the consequences. But they are ******** their pants terrified to put their money where Schitt's big dirty lying mouth is. Idiots that they are, they know they have no case at all Lol

That being said, your lame attempts to have Sondland's testimony both ways is silly and desperate. When he says, he heard nothing from Trump about qpq or aid being tied to investigation, it is a huge positive for the defense and loss for the prosecution and no amount of nonsensical spin can change this.

 

Tell Trump...….