Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

No, no problem at all. How could "We'll stop it" from the lead investigator in the Russia interference investigation, be taken out of context?

Well, how could he?

What magically power do you think he has? What super-duper-secret (and totally ineffective) "insurance plan" could he have had?

Nada. That's what.

Ask him and the others in "Andy's office" about the "insurance plan". Why do you think Mueller got rid of him?

Right. That "insurance plan" was obviously ineffective.

The reason you're stuck on it is because ... you prefer conspiracy theories to reality, I guess.

I'm not stuck on it. I was asked to compare "context" between the FBI texts and the Ambassador texts. Obviously, Mueller didn't think that the FBI texts were being "taken out of context".

PP here. I think I got a little lost in this exchange. But I think what you're saying is, Jordan aside, that Congress and ultimately the public should see the rest of the Taylor and Sondland exchanges too see exactly what they meant by what they were saying. Because right now, it looks bad for the president. Terrible, really, if you think that sort of behavior (withholding military funds for personal campaign purposes and/or asking other countries to interfere in our elections) is a no-no.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

No, no problem at all. How could "We'll stop it" from the lead investigator in the Russia interference investigation, be taken out of context?

Well, how could he?

What magically power do you think he has? What super-duper-secret (and totally ineffective) "insurance plan" could he have had?

Nada. That's what.

Ask him and the others in "Andy's office" about the "insurance plan". Why do you think Mueller got rid of him?

Right. That "insurance plan" was obviously ineffective.

The reason you're stuck on it is because ... you prefer conspiracy theories to reality, I guess.

I'm not stuck on it. I was asked to compare "context" between the FBI texts and the Ambassador texts. Obviously, Mueller didn't think that the FBI texts were being "taken out of context".

Anonymous wrote:So will Gaetz, Jordan and Meadows apply the 'Hillary emails" standard to the Ambassador Sondland's personal phone?

Democrats need to hold them to it, or make the GOP account for their hypocrisy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

No, no problem at all. How could "We'll stop it" from the lead investigator in the Russia interference investigation, be taken out of context?

Well, how could he?

What magically power do you think he has? What super-duper-secret (and totally ineffective) "insurance plan" could he have had?

Nada. That's what.

Ask him and the others in "Andy's office" about the "insurance plan". Why do you think Mueller got rid of him?

Right. That "insurance plan" was obviously ineffective.

The reason you're stuck on it is because ... you prefer conspiracy theories to reality, I guess.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

No, no problem at all. How could "We'll stop it" from the lead investigator in the Russia interference investigation, be taken out of context?

Well, how could he?

What magically power do you think he has? What super-duper-secret (and totally ineffective) "insurance plan" could he have had?

Nada. That's what.

Ask him and the others in "Andy's office" about the "insurance plan". Why do you think Mueller got rid of him?

So will Gaetz, Jordan and Meadows apply the 'Hillary emails" standard to the Ambassador Sondland's personal phone?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

No, no problem at all. How could "We'll stop it" from the lead investigator in the Russia interference investigation, be taken out of context?

Well, how could he?

What magically power do you think he has? What super-duper-secret (and totally ineffective) "insurance plan" could he have had?

Nada. That's what.

Anonymous wrote:Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

No, no problem at all. How could "We'll stop it" from the lead investigator in the Russia interference investigation, be taken out of context?

Jim Jordan on FBI texts (2018): "Their bias was pretty darn clear from some of the earlier text messages we’ve seen."

Jim Jordan on State Dept texts (2019): “If you’re going to selectively leak text messages….and not give the full context...we understand why they made this decision.”


See the problem Trump Supporters?

Anonymous wrote:

Then, they should make it official and take a vote. Why is Pelosi not doing this if she KNOWS she has the votes?
When this is a legitimate process, and the GOP has the same rights of subpoena and such that the Dems have, people will cooperate. Until then, I don't blame them for not participating in this sham.

They are using the same rules the republicans used two years ago. Do you not remember how frustrated Schiff was getting in the era of the Nunes Memo? Same.Exact.Rules.

Why do you think the GOP deserves more rights in the House now than the Dems had two years ago? Maybe if Paul Ryan had run a more open House of Representatives, this would be a valid argument, but see the problem? Ryan set the standard on this one, and Newt before in 1998.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The media can fool people...for a bit.

Eventually the truth comes out, and the liars lose the little credibility they have left.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf should be required reading in every newsroom and every Dem's office -- they have forgotten its crucial message.


Hard for the truth to come out when the administration stonewalls. Why won't State let Gordy Sondland testify? I'm sure he could clear up this whole mess.

When Pelosi decides to make this process legitimate, they will be more open to cooperation.

Sondland says he's open to telling Congress everything. But his boss told him he can't...

His boss, the President. Who is tweeting his obstruction of justice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The media can fool people...for a bit.

Eventually the truth comes out, and the liars lose the little credibility they have left.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf should be required reading in every newsroom and every Dem's office -- they have forgotten its crucial message.


Hard for the truth to come out when the administration stonewalls. Why won't State let Gordy Sondland testify? I'm sure he could clear up this whole mess.

When Pelosi decides to make this process legitimate, they will be more open to cooperation.

See, this is the thing. Pelosi is using the same rules that were used in 1998. The only reason it is seen as illegitimate is because Trump and the right wing echo chamber says so. The fact is, even if there were a formal vote, the White House would still stonewall and withhold information. If you don't think the shredders are working overtime at the white house right now, then you don't understand how lifetime criminals operate. The good news is that the American public is seeing this for what it is, deception, stonewalling, obstructing justice, destroying evidence. Not the actions of people who are innocent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That's not how this works.

It's clear that "not how this works." At least when it comes to the Democrats.
They won't allow their members to go on record with a vote.
They won't allow people to testify in public - risking disputing their narrative.
They want this "inquiry" to happen quickly and in secret. The American people cannot know their motivation.

You really have this backwards.

Anonymous wrote:Certainly one reason why Sondland was blocked from testifying is because he talked to Trump during the 5 hour gap in this text exchange with Bill Taylor.

One message, written by William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, suggested that Mr. Trump was holding back the package of military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip to influence the country’s president to do his political bidding.

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Sept. 9 to Mr. Volker and Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union.

After speaking to Mr. Trump, Mr. Sondland replied, taking issue that there was any sort of direct agreement. He wrote, “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He then suggested the conversation move to phone rather than text.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/kurt-volker-impeachment.html

Coincidentally, that's the same text Trump tweeted about this morning.

House Intel Chairman Adam Schiff says State Department is "withholding" messages from Sondland's "personal device" related to this investigation.

Certainly one reason why Sondland was blocked from testifying is because he talked to Trump during the 5 hour gap in this text exchange with Bill Taylor.

One message, written by William B. Taylor Jr., the top American diplomat in Ukraine, suggested that Mr. Trump was holding back the package of military aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip to influence the country’s president to do his political bidding.

“As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” Mr. Taylor wrote on Sept. 9 to Mr. Volker and Gordon D. Sondland, the United States ambassador to the European Union.

After speaking to Mr. Trump, Mr. Sondland replied, taking issue that there was any sort of direct agreement. He wrote, “The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo’s of any kind.” He then suggested the conversation move to phone rather than text.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/03/us/politics/kurt-volker-impeachment.html

Coincidentally, that's the same text Trump tweeted about this morning.