Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

It was after the whistle blower report, and it was also after a Politico article that reported that Trump had held up the security assistance, and it was when Ambassador Taylor asked Sondland whether they were saying that both the security assistance and White House meeting were conditioned on investigations, which is why Sondland was seeking guidance on what to say.

Saying that you are not committing a crime, during or after you committed a crime, does not make you innocent of the crime.

Thank you for clarifying the timing! I couldn't watch all of the hearings today.

I really fear for this country. People getting hung up on details when the main issue is staring them in the face. The President of the USA used his official power to request help for his own campaign. Done. Who cares what he said about whether or not there was QPQ?

I think all of our nerves are raw from this. Wanting to line up the details isn't why you should fear for this country. You should fear for this country because we have a crazy criminal in the WH. I just appreciated hearing details of the timing because I knew some of our little Trumpsters here would keep bringing up "but Trump said no quid pro quo to Sondland!"

[Anonymous]

Schiff gets 3 Pinocchios for claiming that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."

The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.

Schiff has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff said Tuesday.

"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schiff gets 3 Pinocchios for claiming that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."

The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.

Schiff has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff said Tuesday.

"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim

And Donald gets 5 for just about everything that comes out of his mouth. The bottom line is that the testimony given to date provide much more detail and first hand accounting of the events related to this episode than what the Whitleblower reported. There is no reason to "out" the whistleblower as there is nothing more than can be added to the public record, unless Bolton is the whistleblower. Seeking the whistleblower does nothing to defend Donald Trump from the crimes committed by him and his administration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Schiff gets 3 Pinocchios for claiming that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."

The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.

Schiff has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff said Tuesday.

"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim

And Trump lied about having sex with a porn star while his wife was recuperating from child birth and lied about paying the pornstar to keep quiet during election.

That is just 1 of of the day 14000 proven lies he already has said!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schiff gets 3 Pinocchios for claiming that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."

The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.

Schiff has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff said Tuesday.

"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim

And Trump lied about having sex with a porn star while his wife was recuperating from child birth and lied about paying the pornstar to keep quiet during election.

That is just 1 of of the day 14000 proven lies he already has said!

Aww.
Aren't you cute. Touched a nerve, I see, for pointing out Schiff's continuous lies.
This award is in addition to the 4 he received for claiming he had not had contact with the WB.
I don't think they gave him an award for his little "parody" on the House floor.
He really really really doesn't want the WB identified. There is a reason for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Trump voter; I felt badly about the Sondland testimony until I watched the freak show from Atlanta last night. I won’t accept a shooting on fifth avenue, but I don’t care what information about hunter trump wanted (congrats to the new dad btw), at least he’s not selling socialism. Only one on the stage I could vote for is Tulsi, who was attacked by crazy Kamala with her fake southern accent.

If you felt bad about the Sondland testimony, then you must have only seen highlights from MSM.
According to them, it was "all over." Then, he folded under questioning by the Republicans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Schiff gets 3 Pinocchios for claiming that the whistleblower has a statutory right to anonymity.

The Washington Post gave House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) three Pinocchios on Wednesday for his claim that the whistleblower in the impeachment process against President Trump "has a statutory right to anonymity."

The Post's fact-checker applies Pinocchios ranging from one to four, with three and four being reserved for what the column considers the more egregious statements.

Schiff has said repeatedly, including during impeachment hearings on Tuesday, that the whistleblower who filed a formal complaint about Trump’s July 25 phone call with the president of Ukraine has a statutory right to remain anonymous.
“The whistleblower has the right, a statutory right, to anonymity. These proceedings will not be used to out the whistleblower," Schiff said Tuesday.

"The case for Three: The ICWPA doesn’t include language granting whistleblowers a right to anonymity. Neither do other statutes, directives or court rulings that apply to the intelligence community," it reads. "The argument that whistleblower-protection laws implicitly provide anonymity is more nuanced, and debatable, than what Schiff said in a nationally televised hearing. And what good is a statutory right anyway if there’s no mechanism to enforce it?"

https://thehill.com/homenews/media/471256-wapo-gives-schiff-three-pinocchois-on-whistleblower-anonymity-claim

And Trump lied about having sex with a porn star while his wife was recuperating from child birth and lied about paying the pornstar to keep quiet during election.

That is just 1 of of the day 14000 proven lies he already has said!

Aww.
Aren't you cute. Touched a nerve, I see, for pointing out Schiff's continuous lies.
This award is in addition to the 4 he received for claiming he had not had contact with the WB.
I don't think they gave him an award for his little "parody" on the House floor.
He really really really doesn't want the WB identified. There is a reason for that.

Schiff's continuous lies...

No, his description of Trump as a continuum of insidiousness was true.

[Anonymous]

He doesn’t want the WB outed because the WB’s safety could be at risk. See Vindman.

Most judges or chairmen don’t want their proceedings to be the cause of someone’s harm.

[Anonymous]

Republicans: But it wasn't the bad kind of bribery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He doesn’t want the WB outed because the WB’s safety could be at risk. See Vindman.

Most judges or chairmen don’t want their proceedings to be the cause of someone’s harm.

Meanwhile crickets on Sondland threats... double standard?

[Anonymous]

The Post fact check is picking nits. Whistleblower complaints are sealed so that the accused is not tipped off and destroys evidence and/or retaliates while the official authorities investigate the complaint. That isn’t statutory anonymity but it blocks disclosure.

If the official authorities choose to take up the case, it is no longer a whistleblower case, it becomes like any other official investigation, and the evidence in the official investigation supersedes the whistleblower complaint. It is only if the officials do not pursue the case that it would continue as a whistleblower case.

This hasn’t been a whistleblower case for weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He doesn’t want the WB outed because the WB’s safety could be at risk. See Vindman.

Most judges or chairmen don’t want their proceedings to be the cause of someone’s harm.

That is pure BS.
Sondland has dealt with more threats than anyone. Liberals don't seem to care. Especially Schiff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn’t want the WB outed because the WB’s safety could be at risk. See Vindman.

Most judges or chairmen don’t want their proceedings to be the cause of someone’s harm.

Meanwhile crickets on Sondland threats... double standard?

Sondland threats? Hotel boycotts? Or something else that I haven't heard abou

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He doesn’t want the WB outed because the WB’s safety could be at risk. See Vindman.

Most judges or chairmen don’t want their proceedings to be the cause of someone’s harm.

That is pure BS.
Sondland has dealt with more threats than anyone. Liberals don't seem to care. Especially Schiff.

Oh, please! You're just parroting the republican congressmen from the hearing.

[Anonymous]

There is no both sides. Republicans are trying to bribe foreign countries to manipulate the 2020 election.

They should be getting the electric chair. Full stop.