“House Democrats have done a lot of talking about bribery, after finally realizing that quid pro quo wasn’t having an impact. And yet in their impeachment inquiry hearing, and the depositions before that, barely any mention of bribery has been made. Rep. John Ratcliffe blasted Democrats this afternoon during his five-minute question period, choosing instead to raise questions about the honesty and integrity of House majority leadership. “Why do the crimes which the president is being accused of keep changing?” Ratliff asked, and then answered, “Polling”:
——
“This is important because as early as next week, my Democratic colleagues are going to say, ‘We need to vote on the evidence from this impeachment inquiry on the impeachment of the president for bribery,’ and they’re going to send a report to the Judiciary Committee. Because there’s more Democrats than Republicans, it’s likely going to pass. When that happens, the American people need to be clear that when the Democrats, what they are describing as bribery, not a single witness is describing as bribery,” Ratcliffe continued.”
—–
“In fact, in these 3,500 pages of sworn testimony in just these ten transcripts released thus far, the word ‘bribery’ appears in these 3,500 pages exactly one time. And ironically, it appears not in a description of President Trump’s alleged conduct. It appears in the description of Vice President [Joe] Biden’s alleged conduct,” he said.
Ratcliffe isn’t the only person to notice that no testimony of bribery has been offered, let alone any evidence of it. Liberal law professor and CBS legal analyst Jonathan Turley made the same point earlier in the day. There may be “no emerging narrative coming from the Republican side,” but they won’t need one if Democrats can’t establish an impeachable act. The bribery charge has a “very sketchy basis,” and Turley doesn’t think they’ve come close to it:”
He doesn’t seem to know much about what it is they cll him an “expert” at. I don’t think that word means what they think it means.
Nunes: Did you know that financial records show a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, routed more than $ 3 million to American accounts tied to Hunter Biden?
Vindman, whose job is to handle Ukraine policy: "I'm not aware of this fact." pic.twitter.com/6yFbWkufmH
The author of the report has clarified that his figures do not represent the number of children currently in migration-related US detention, but the total number of children in migration-related US detention in 2015.
“Students from the College Republicans and Turning Point USA were exhibiting on the campus of Binghamton University in New York, when they suddenly found themselves surrounded by an angry mob.
The video, which is posted below, shows students yelling obscenities at them and throwing their materials on the ground.
Frank Camp of the Daily Wire has details:
SHOCKING VIDEO: Conservative Students Harassed And Intimidated By Leftist Student Mob
On Thursday, conservative students affiliated with the College Republicans and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) at Binghamton University in New York were harassed and intimidated by a massive mob of activists.
The groups were “tabling” side-by-side in a public space on campus, according to John Restuccia, president of the College Republicans.
While the College Republicans were handing out flyers for an upcoming speech by famed economist Dr. Arthur Laffer sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), the individuals at the TPUSA table were handing out buttons and posters pertaining to conservative political ideology.
Restuccia left to attend a class, but was later called back to the site due to the burgeoning protest. He dialed the State University Police and headed over…
In the video, one activist attempts to dismantle the College Republicans/TPUSA set up, throwing buttons and posters to the ground, and flipping the table.
“Pack this s*** up. It’s time to go,” she says, grabbing and tossing property from the table…
At various points, members of the mob start chanting: “F*** Trump,” and “No justice, no peace. No racist police.”
Yesterday’s column from Douthat is particularly interesting when read in conjunction with the discussion of postmodern nihilism From Bulwark which I posted yesterday afternoon.
“DEMS MULL MUELLER IMPEACHMENT COUNT
House Democrats reportedly are considering whether to pursue in their impeachment inquiry matters arising from the Mueller investigation. Specifically, they are looking at whether President Trump lied to Robert Mueller.
The Washington Post’s report on this development is based on representations made by House Democrats to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. The Dems told the court that they need secret grand jury evidence from the Mueller probe to be released in order to consider, as part of their impeachment inquiry, whether Trump lied to Mueller.
Are the Democrats telling the truth to the court or are they just using the existence of the impeachment inquiry to pry loose secret testimony they have long wanted? According to the Post, Democrats had privately been playing down the suggestion that the Mueller investigation is likely to be part of articles of impeachment.
But now, again according to the Post, Democrats are debating whether articles of impeachment should include obstruction of justice allegations stemming from the Mueller investigation and report. The usual suspects are taking their usual sides. Nancy Pelosi wants to keep the focus on Ukraine. Hard leftists want to bring in Mueller. They can’t let go.”
“Beware of Washington’s Foreign Policy Establishment Blob
President Trump has unmasked the groupthink that passes for wisdom in official Washington. The Wise Men and their progeny take that as a personal insult.”
“Beware of the blob.
That’s either a kitschy Burt Bachrach tune from the 1950s, a warning about Washington’s permanent foreign policy establishment, or the takeaway from watching witnesses in the impeachment hearings.
At one time, the State Department was accused of harboring secret Soviet spies, à la Alger Hiss.
Today, the harbor is filled with globalists, and they are quite open about their efforts to subvert President Trump’s foreign policy.
His America First agenda not only conflicts with the species of globalism that is an article of faith in elite Washington, it takes foreign policy off the autopilot setting that it’s been on for decades.
And that may be his greatest offense in the eyes of the foreign-policy establishment.”
——
“These honorable and capable men displayed an element of excellent students who’ve memorized all the facts if not grasping their meaning, adept at following whatever map you give them but not at drawing a new one for unfamiliar territory.
One can’t escape feeling that what these diplomats feared most was not a column of Russian troops marching into Crimea and Ukraine, but the march of time overtaking their comforting yet outdated concepts of the world. Who moved my cheese?
Kent gave away the true nature of the game when he said, “Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO.”
This was asserted, and accepted, as fact—“settled law”—though it’s unclear who made the decision to oblige us to be willing to go to war in Ukraine against a nuclear-armed Russia. The president? Congress? Did we miss the debate?
In addition to arrogating to themselves the power to make foreign policy, the foreign-policy establishment engages in a paint-by-numbers exercise when it comes to making policy. No inspiration, no original thinking, no attempt to reflect reality, just follow the outlines laid down by someone else before.
These experts were taught NATO defended “free Europe” from “Russian aggression” when Soviet tanks were ready to drive through Germany’s Fulda Gap in the 20th century. Therefore, expand NATO up to Russia’s border in the 21st century.
Kent testified how “a Europe truly whole, free, and at peace” has been “our strategic game for the entirety of my foreign service career.”
So he and his fellows in the foreign policy establishment push for a united Europe even as Britain, Hungary, Italy, Greece, and Catalonia bristle at Brussels’ centralized power.
We see this copy-and-paste mindset at work time and again.
A 1947 U.N. resolution declared Jerusalem would be an international city administered by the United Nations. For seven decades, official U.S. Middle East policy perpetuated this fantasy even as it became obvious the U.N. couldn’t manage a one-car funeral and Israel would never surrender Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people. President Trump recognized that reality and moved our embassy to Jerusalem over the dire predictions and objections of the “foreign policy professionals.”
The “experts” welcomed China into the “rules-based international order” on the premise this would turn that Communist tyranny into a democratic ally. Toward that end, we shared scientific research as well as extended development loans and Peace Corps missions. These continued, some to this day, even as Beijing grew more hostile and authoritarian.
Such is the track record of the foreign policy professionals we’re told not to question.”
I can’t help but feel a little sorry for Sondland. He probably only made the donation and took the job as Ambassador to the E.U. because his wife wanted to go to parties at all the fancy palaces of Europe.
— Tony Turner (on Bluesky and Post) (@tonyturnertn) November 20, 2019
I am reminded of poor Tillerson who knew better than to serve in Trump’s Cabinet, but was persuaded by his wife who preferred the glamorous Georgetown parties to the charity balls of North Texas.
Then it was Avennatti, Ricky’s favorite creepy porn lawyer who was gonna be epic.
Then it was Yovanovitch….
Then it was Vindman…..
Now it’s Sondland…..
That word is clearly being misused by you and your friends Ricky.
Because none of it has been any such thing.
Laughable? Yes.
Clownish? And then some.
A total fraud? For sure.
A total waste of taxpayer money? Undoubtedly.
A set-up from the start? Without question.
There’s a lot of things you can call this scam, but epic isn’t one of them, unless you follow epic with failure.
“Pence Chief Of Staff Fires Back At Sondland: That Conversation Never Happened”
“What did Mike Pence know, and when did he know it? According to Gordon Sondland, he told the vice president on September 1 that he believed that military aid to Ukraine had been stalled as leverage for investigations into corruption. Sondland included this in his opening statement:”
—
“Not surprisingly, Adam Schiff drilled down into this immediately during Sondland’s live testimony. The testimony itself is rather weak sauce, even if did prompt a strong response from Pence’s office:”
—
“Pence’s office didn’t let it slide, however. In a statement sent out widely to media via e-mail, including Hot Air, chief of staff Marc Short blasted Sondland’s testimony as false. The conversation that Sondland described “never happened,” according to Short:
“The Vice President never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma, or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based upon potential investigations.
“Ambassador Gordon Sondland was never alone with Vice President Pence on the September 1 trip to Poland. This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened.
“Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President Pence never raised Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any conversation with Ukrainians or President Zelensky before, during, or after the September 1 meeting in Poland.”
This should be rather easy to determine. Does anyone have the security logs for Pence in Poland, which would likely document Pence’s movements and those around him? Surely Pence had his staff around during this trip, too. If Sondland wasn’t alone with Pence, then his story begins to look a little suspect.
But even if he was alone with Pence, this still doesn’t prove much of anything. Sondland didn’t testify that Pence told him anything about a quid pro quo, just that he “nodded” at Sondland’s concerns over the potential for one. As Short notes, no one has suggested that Pence pushed anything of the sort; indeed, testimony already exists that Pence never linked anything to aid, nor was inclined to do so.”
“Sondland Opening Statement: The Quid Pro Quo Was Real, And It Was Spectacular; Update: Trump Never Told Me About It “Ever””
“But which specific quid pro quo was real? It might not be the one Adam Schiff needs. Some of this had already leaked out ahead of our first post this morning about Gordon Sondland’s testimony, but his written opening statement deserves a thread of its own. As NBC News reports, it’s a legit bombshell that might force Republicans into the uncomfortable — but not untried — position of defending quid pro quos. Sondland will testify that everyone at the White House and State Department knew that a quid pro quo existed tied to an investigation of the Bidens, and that it came from the top. But what was the quo?
Not the aid, mind you. We’ll get back to that later, but Sondland knows he’d better be prepared for the challenges to come from this statement:
Sondland’s 19-page opening statement — plus texts and emails not previously made public — is filled with new details and disclosures he omitted from both his over nine-hour hour closed-door deposition and a sworn declaration he made later. He will say his memory had been refreshed by other witnesses’ testimony, but lawmakers are likely to grill Sondland over his failure to produce the information previously and whether his testimony can be trusted after changing so many times.”
————
““Again,” Sondland writes, “everyone was in the loop.”
With that said, however, Sondland never actually ties Trump to a quid pro quo for the aid. He gets all the way down to the one-yard line, and then spikes the ball. The closest Sondland comes to tying military aid to a specific policy of quid pro quo for a Burisma probe is that it became “my belief” that the two were tied together:
Oh and we know from today’s testimony that your Tweet you shared from the other day about Bolton’s supposed “drug deal” comment was fake news. Sorry try again.
SONDLAND testifies that he doesn't ever recall President Trump talking to him about security assistance.
What we're hearing from Sondland today is all about his presumptions. Nothing more, nothing less. No direct evidence to prove any of the Democrats' impeachment charges. pic.twitter.com/HwsqGq0RLB
Ricky and his sources at 11;58AM left out key details in the Starr thing he posted above?
This is my shocked face. 🤨
Try again.
“Just one problem: In the video many on the Left referenced, Starr can clearly be heard prefacing his comments by saying “what we heard from the chairman just now” and making it clear “this is his [Schiff’s] position”:”
At least Jennifer Griffin had the decency to admit her mistake, unlike Ricky. That’s why his tweet above is defective. 7000 retweets of the fake news, but only 400 retweets of the correction. Why am I not shocked?
Frauds like Ricky are too busy tweeting the false one to notice the correction.
Clarification: Ken Starr was interpreting what Cong Adam Schiff was now thinking after hearing the Sondland testimony, which Starr described as a bombshell, adding that he would expect new articles of impeachment to be drawn up as a result. https://t.co/2l4IWTK6oL
Clarification: Starr was quoting Schiff in the first part of what he said below, but added that he would assume new articles of impeachment would now be drawn up, describing today’s testimony as “bombshell.” https://t.co/9bMeBAvZqV
Top official Tim Morrison said Alexander Vindman's bosses had a lot of concerns about him:
-Judgement -Potential leaker -Did not keep his bosses in the loop on what he was doing -Went around his bosses' backs -Was mad he was cut out of working on Ukraine pic.twitter.com/Z9qgSVs9dt
It looks like Vindman was on their radar for misconduct and leaking even before the Ukraine call and therefore there may even be an ongoing investigation into Vindman we don't know about and that is why Morrison cannot comment on it more specifically. 🤔
AJ, can you respond to the substance of Ricky’s posts without calling him names (like “fraud”) or attributing motives (“your new BFFs, the Democrats”, “Ricky’s favorite creepy porn lawyer”)?
Regarding the Griffin/Starr mistake you said, “At least Jennifer Griffin had the decency to admit her mistake, unlike Ricky…Frauds like Ricky are too busy tweeting the false one to notice the correction.” Ricky posted Griffin’s mistaken tweet at 11:58. He couldn’t have noticed her correction then because it was not posted until 12:01. He’s probably had other things to do since then and might not even know about it.
You could have simply pointed out the error and invited Ricky to comment. Calling him a fraud was wrong.
I know you have a history of mutual name-calling with Ricky, but he’s toned it down lately. He doesn’t say anything about you in any of his posts today. Can you do likewise?
Are you Ricky’s brother in Christ? Are your political differences bigger than that? Are you speaking “only what is helpful for building others up, that it may benefit those who listen”? (Eph 4:29)
He comes here daily, insults me, calls me a cultist, uneducated, and worse, all on a blog I take the time to pay for and maintain by myself. He’s been wrong since day one, hasn’t once apologized, or given a mea culpa, and continues to push things he knows are lies, and then won’t own up to it. He has questioned peoples’ salvation and walk simply based on who they voted for, he has acted in a most unforgiving manner.
I’ve lost patience, I’ve grown tired of it. And I’ve also noted that but for a few, no one ever says a word about it. I’ve grown weary of this game and am even considering tossing in the whole deal. Were it not for the rest of you I may have already.
So in a word.
No.
But I can promise you this. It ends soon one way or the other. Rather than continue acting poorly myself, which I acknowledge my role in doing willfully, I will do what I have been avoiding. I’m banning Ricky. As a result, anonymous comments will have to go away too. Log in and own it, or don’t say it.
This is where I’m at. Nothing personal Kevin, not directed at you specifically, but since you brought it up…..
I agree with Kevin. (I can’t “like” something now.)
But I have to admit that the Democrats have already passed the bounds of sanity.
I’ll be glad when this farce is over. Wasted lots of TV time. I can’t watch it.
(I have the BBC channel on. I turn my TV on because the screen shows the phone number calling when the phone rings. But I mute it most of the time.)
I see how history has made you feel that way, AJ. It just seems to me that he’s been toning it down lately and I was hoping for a lasting peace.
I have called him out more than once when I thought he was behaving badly, so I hope you don’t feel I’m picking on you.
I do appreciate your providing the forum, and it’s certainly yours to conduct as you see fit. I value the information you provide, as I value the information that comes from others, and I appreciate the exchange of opinions and arguments that makes me think.
AJ, if you admit that you are the one acting poorly now, if Ricky has not committed anything “ban-worthy” since he came back anonymously, then is banning him really getting rid of the problem? I admit I usually ignore the news and politics thread now, because I just don’t care as much about Trump as you guys do. I’d far rather have this thread focus on real news (of which the current impeachment is only part, not all).
If I count correctly, the first 33 posts on this thread are 26 AJ (some of them very long with lots of screenshots, and sometimes 6 or 7 in a row), 6 Ricky, and 1 someone else (DJ).
People sometimes can’t get on here to log on and end up posting anonymously by accident or posting anonymously but putting their name at the end of their post. Anonymous posting doesn’t seem (to me) to be the problem. It is your blog, your rules, but might I suggest different ones instead, at least for the political thread? For example:
No one can make more than two posts in a row, unless at least four hours have elapsed without further comments. When making comments about another poster on this blog, the poster can only mention that person’s name or screen name, not adjectives or nouns about him. For example, “In her 11:15 post, DJ quotes this sentence.” And when referring to groups of people, terms used cannot be derisive, but must be terms the group would use about itself. For instance, “Trump supporters” or “Never Trumpers” are terms the groups might use of themselves, but “Trumpkins” or “idiots” are not.
You might even say that a person can give only his own opinion of the news event being posted, NOT what he perceives another person’s perspective to be. For example, rather than saying “Never Trumpers aren’t going to like this new proof that they are all liars,” the poster might say “This seems to me to support Person A’s testimony that Person B lied on the stand last week.”
Make this thread one in which rules of journalism (not the messy, dirty kind, the respectable kind) apply–and in which people think of each other as fellow Christians. Learning to debate in a civil manner is actually a useful skill, and incorporating actual rules for the discussion can help that.
My two cents. I grew up with five brothers (and so far about 20 nephews), and have seen my share of debating–but it can be done poorly or well.
Perhaps someone else will post the conservative or factual mainstream articles that I have been posting.
I have never questioned anyone’s salvation based on how he/she voted. I did question whether there was any evidence that Trump had ever heard the Gospel, but I made clear that was not an attack on Trump.
I do know exactly how to get under AJ’s skin. I don’t even read most of his posts and ignore the majority of the insults, but every now and then I will respond and stick the needle in. That is not good for either one of us.
As I have said before, this is a great virtual Sunday School class. The prayers and mutual encouragement are very important. It is going to be hard to discuss politics until Trump is gone, but y’all will have a better chance of doing it if I am not around.
FYI I was playing with my grandson all afternoon, then visiting with my mother, then eating supper with my wife and had no idea what was going on around here yesterday until late.
AJ, You have a good thing going here, and your people love you. Listen to them … on all matters except the ban. On that issue, you were right.
Wandering Views 
Time for a new focus group. 🙂
“House Democrats have done a lot of talking about bribery, after finally realizing that quid pro quo wasn’t having an impact. And yet in their impeachment inquiry hearing, and the depositions before that, barely any mention of bribery has been made. Rep. John Ratcliffe blasted Democrats this afternoon during his five-minute question period, choosing instead to raise questions about the honesty and integrity of House majority leadership. “Why do the crimes which the president is being accused of keep changing?” Ratliff asked, and then answered, “Polling”:
——
“This is important because as early as next week, my Democratic colleagues are going to say, ‘We need to vote on the evidence from this impeachment inquiry on the impeachment of the president for bribery,’ and they’re going to send a report to the Judiciary Committee. Because there’s more Democrats than Republicans, it’s likely going to pass. When that happens, the American people need to be clear that when the Democrats, what they are describing as bribery, not a single witness is describing as bribery,” Ratcliffe continued.”
—–
“In fact, in these 3,500 pages of sworn testimony in just these ten transcripts released thus far, the word ‘bribery’ appears in these 3,500 pages exactly one time. And ironically, it appears not in a description of President Trump’s alleged conduct. It appears in the description of Vice President [Joe] Biden’s alleged conduct,” he said.
Ratcliffe isn’t the only person to notice that no testimony of bribery has been offered, let alone any evidence of it. Liberal law professor and CBS legal analyst Jonathan Turley made the same point earlier in the day. There may be “no emerging narrative coming from the Republican side,” but they won’t need one if Democrats can’t establish an impeachable act. The bribery charge has a “very sketchy basis,” and Turley doesn’t think they’ve come close to it:”
LikeLike
These people leak more than a day old diaper.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/impeachment-hearing-did-vindman-leak-information-to-the-whistleblower/
“Impeachment Hearing: Did Vindman Leak Information to the Whistleblower?
It’s a clown show.”
—–
LikeLike
He doesn’t seem to know much about what it is they cll him an “expert” at. I don’t think that word means what they think it means.
————–
https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1196851069621592065
I guess he meant he didn’t talk to anyone not in on the scam. 🙂
LikeLike
Dang that Trump!
He has a 100,000 kids in camps!
Oh….. wait…..
———-
So they retract it rather than update it with the truth, because it makes Obama look bad. 🙂
Such frauds.
LikeLiked by 2 people
https://twitter.com/FrankMarro/status/1196907462542147584
————
https://twitter.com/RRangel4JC/status/1196909687129571328
LikeLiked by 1 person
https://twitter.com/ArthurBachNY/status/1196905329600151553
———-
LikeLiked by 1 person
Douthat continues to be sympathetic to Trumpkins, though not to Trump himself.
LikeLike
This is disgusting. This is 3rd world garbage.
They should sue the college for their tuition money back and the clear violations of their rights.
Careful which indoctrination camp you choose for your kids.
CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!
Because they’re a foul mouthed bunch.
https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/11/video-anti-trump-mob-attacks-and-taunts-conservative-students-at-binghamton-university/
“Students from the College Republicans and Turning Point USA were exhibiting on the campus of Binghamton University in New York, when they suddenly found themselves surrounded by an angry mob.
The video, which is posted below, shows students yelling obscenities at them and throwing their materials on the ground.
Frank Camp of the Daily Wire has details:
SHOCKING VIDEO: Conservative Students Harassed And Intimidated By Leftist Student Mob
On Thursday, conservative students affiliated with the College Republicans and Turning Point USA (TPUSA) at Binghamton University in New York were harassed and intimidated by a massive mob of activists.
The groups were “tabling” side-by-side in a public space on campus, according to John Restuccia, president of the College Republicans.
While the College Republicans were handing out flyers for an upcoming speech by famed economist Dr. Arthur Laffer sponsored by the Young America’s Foundation (YAF), the individuals at the TPUSA table were handing out buttons and posters pertaining to conservative political ideology.
Restuccia left to attend a class, but was later called back to the site due to the burgeoning protest. He dialed the State University Police and headed over…
In the video, one activist attempts to dismantle the College Republicans/TPUSA set up, throwing buttons and posters to the ground, and flipping the table.
“Pack this s*** up. It’s time to go,” she says, grabbing and tossing property from the table…
At various points, members of the mob start chanting: “F*** Trump,” and “No justice, no peace. No racist police.”
—————-
AGAIN, CONTENT WARNING!!!!!!
LikeLike
Yesterday’s column from Douthat is particularly interesting when read in conjunction with the discussion of postmodern nihilism From Bulwark which I posted yesterday afternoon.
LikeLike
Ricky,
You better sit down for this one. Your new BFFs, the Democrats, are about to drag your senile hero from the last charade into this charade too.
I doubt Old Bob is up for it again, if his last appearance is any indication.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/dems-mull-mueller-impeachment-count.php
“DEMS MULL MUELLER IMPEACHMENT COUNT
House Democrats reportedly are considering whether to pursue in their impeachment inquiry matters arising from the Mueller investigation. Specifically, they are looking at whether President Trump lied to Robert Mueller.
The Washington Post’s report on this development is based on representations made by House Democrats to the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C. The Dems told the court that they need secret grand jury evidence from the Mueller probe to be released in order to consider, as part of their impeachment inquiry, whether Trump lied to Mueller.
Are the Democrats telling the truth to the court or are they just using the existence of the impeachment inquiry to pry loose secret testimony they have long wanted? According to the Post, Democrats had privately been playing down the suggestion that the Mueller investigation is likely to be part of articles of impeachment.
But now, again according to the Post, Democrats are debating whether articles of impeachment should include obstruction of justice allegations stemming from the Mueller investigation and report. The usual suspects are taking their usual sides. Nancy Pelosi wants to keep the focus on Ukraine. Hard leftists want to bring in Mueller. They can’t let go.”
LikeLike
After several days of hearing from earnest bureaucrats, today we get to hear from Gordon Sondland, Trump’s co-conspirator in the Ukraine Extortion.
Will he lie to cover for Trump as he did in his deposition?
Will his memory continue to be “refreshed” by the accurate testimony of others as it was when he “corrected” his deposition?
Will he have the world’s greatest case of amnesia?
We will be able to tell by the reaction of The Cult.
Poor Sondland gave Trump $1 million for the privilege of being included in this mess.
LikeLike
Professionals?
Not even close.
They’re just little pieces of ooze in The Blob. Slimy ooze at that.
“Beware of Washington’s Foreign Policy Establishment Blob
President Trump has unmasked the groupthink that passes for wisdom in official Washington. The Wise Men and their progeny take that as a personal insult.”
“Beware of the blob.
That’s either a kitschy Burt Bachrach tune from the 1950s, a warning about Washington’s permanent foreign policy establishment, or the takeaway from watching witnesses in the impeachment hearings.
At one time, the State Department was accused of harboring secret Soviet spies, à la Alger Hiss.
Today, the harbor is filled with globalists, and they are quite open about their efforts to subvert President Trump’s foreign policy.
His America First agenda not only conflicts with the species of globalism that is an article of faith in elite Washington, it takes foreign policy off the autopilot setting that it’s been on for decades.
And that may be his greatest offense in the eyes of the foreign-policy establishment.”
——
“These honorable and capable men displayed an element of excellent students who’ve memorized all the facts if not grasping their meaning, adept at following whatever map you give them but not at drawing a new one for unfamiliar territory.
One can’t escape feeling that what these diplomats feared most was not a column of Russian troops marching into Crimea and Ukraine, but the march of time overtaking their comforting yet outdated concepts of the world. Who moved my cheese?
Kent gave away the true nature of the game when he said, “Ukraine is on a path to become a full security partner of the United States within NATO.”
This was asserted, and accepted, as fact—“settled law”—though it’s unclear who made the decision to oblige us to be willing to go to war in Ukraine against a nuclear-armed Russia. The president? Congress? Did we miss the debate?
In addition to arrogating to themselves the power to make foreign policy, the foreign-policy establishment engages in a paint-by-numbers exercise when it comes to making policy. No inspiration, no original thinking, no attempt to reflect reality, just follow the outlines laid down by someone else before.
These experts were taught NATO defended “free Europe” from “Russian aggression” when Soviet tanks were ready to drive through Germany’s Fulda Gap in the 20th century. Therefore, expand NATO up to Russia’s border in the 21st century.
Kent testified how “a Europe truly whole, free, and at peace” has been “our strategic game for the entirety of my foreign service career.”
So he and his fellows in the foreign policy establishment push for a united Europe even as Britain, Hungary, Italy, Greece, and Catalonia bristle at Brussels’ centralized power.
We see this copy-and-paste mindset at work time and again.
A 1947 U.N. resolution declared Jerusalem would be an international city administered by the United Nations. For seven decades, official U.S. Middle East policy perpetuated this fantasy even as it became obvious the U.N. couldn’t manage a one-car funeral and Israel would never surrender Jerusalem as the eternal capital of the Jewish people. President Trump recognized that reality and moved our embassy to Jerusalem over the dire predictions and objections of the “foreign policy professionals.”
The “experts” welcomed China into the “rules-based international order” on the premise this would turn that Communist tyranny into a democratic ally. Toward that end, we shared scientific research as well as extended development loans and Peace Corps missions. These continued, some to this day, even as Beijing grew more hostile and authoritarian.
Such is the track record of the foreign policy professionals we’re told not to question.”
LikeLike
What to watch for?
Who is even bothering to watch at this point?
Certainly not the average voter. They’re over this fraud already. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
I can’t help but feel a little sorry for Sondland. He probably only made the donation and took the job as Ambassador to the E.U. because his wife wanted to go to parties at all the fancy palaces of Europe.
I am reminded of poor Tillerson who knew better than to serve in Trump’s Cabinet, but was persuaded by his wife who preferred the glamorous Georgetown parties to the charity balls of North Texas.
LikeLike
First it was Comey they said would be epic.
Then it was Mueller who was going to be epic.
Then it was Avennatti, Ricky’s favorite creepy porn lawyer who was gonna be epic.
Then it was Yovanovitch….
Then it was Vindman…..
Now it’s Sondland…..
That word is clearly being misused by you and your friends Ricky.
Because none of it has been any such thing.
Laughable? Yes.
Clownish? And then some.
A total fraud? For sure.
A total waste of taxpayer money? Undoubtedly.
A set-up from the start? Without question.
There’s a lot of things you can call this scam, but epic isn’t one of them, unless you follow epic with failure.
Epic Failure?
Yep.
😂🤣😂🤣
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mr. Rob and I have been playing in the backyard until it was his nap time. So what happened?
https://twitter.com/aravosis/status/1197184057249062915?s=21
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh.
https://twitter.com/jengriffinfnc/status/1197188642567004161?s=21
LikeLike
Yawn.
Well then impeach him and send it to the Senate.
Where it will die the death it so justly deserves…… 🙂
LikeLike
So Ricky…..
Le’s get you on record right now.
So you are cheering this because you think it removes Trump.
OK, let’s pretend it will.
So who steps into the breach?
Mike Pence, right?
But here’s the problem, your link says he was in on it too.
So now they will impeach him too.
So just so we’re clear about what you are doing here, you’re advocating Nancy Pelosi taking over the presidency as the 3rd in line?
That sounds right.
So do you still think you aren’t a leftist tool helping the godless baby killer party?
Because that’s where you and the left are leading us.
So do you have the stones to at least finally admit it, you know, own it?
LikeLike
Oh, and Pence’s office says your witness is a liar.
Yeah, you got that Bad Orange Man for sure now…. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Or as they put it, this is more weak sauce, and you and your sources are the “Trifecta Of Unreliability”
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/11/20/pence-chief-staff-fires-back-sondland-conversation-never-happened/
“Pence Chief Of Staff Fires Back At Sondland: That Conversation Never Happened”
“What did Mike Pence know, and when did he know it? According to Gordon Sondland, he told the vice president on September 1 that he believed that military aid to Ukraine had been stalled as leverage for investigations into corruption. Sondland included this in his opening statement:”
—
“Not surprisingly, Adam Schiff drilled down into this immediately during Sondland’s live testimony. The testimony itself is rather weak sauce, even if did prompt a strong response from Pence’s office:”
—
“Pence’s office didn’t let it slide, however. In a statement sent out widely to media via e-mail, including Hot Air, chief of staff Marc Short blasted Sondland’s testimony as false. The conversation that Sondland described “never happened,” according to Short:
“The Vice President never had a conversation with Gordon Sondland about investigating the Bidens, Burisma, or the conditional release of financial aid to Ukraine based upon potential investigations.
“Ambassador Gordon Sondland was never alone with Vice President Pence on the September 1 trip to Poland. This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened.
“Multiple witnesses have testified under oath that Vice President Pence never raised Hunter Biden, former Vice President Joe Biden, Crowdstrike, Burisma, or investigations in any conversation with Ukrainians or President Zelensky before, during, or after the September 1 meeting in Poland.”
This should be rather easy to determine. Does anyone have the security logs for Pence in Poland, which would likely document Pence’s movements and those around him? Surely Pence had his staff around during this trip, too. If Sondland wasn’t alone with Pence, then his story begins to look a little suspect.
But even if he was alone with Pence, this still doesn’t prove much of anything. Sondland didn’t testify that Pence told him anything about a quid pro quo, just that he “nodded” at Sondland’s concerns over the potential for one. As Short notes, no one has suggested that Pence pushed anything of the sort; indeed, testimony already exists that Pence never linked anything to aid, nor was inclined to do so.”
Nothing is what you got. Again. Still.
LikeLike
More….
https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/11/20/sondland-opening-statement-quid-pro-quo-real-spectacular/
“Sondland Opening Statement: The Quid Pro Quo Was Real, And It Was Spectacular; Update: Trump Never Told Me About It “Ever””
“But which specific quid pro quo was real? It might not be the one Adam Schiff needs. Some of this had already leaked out ahead of our first post this morning about Gordon Sondland’s testimony, but his written opening statement deserves a thread of its own. As NBC News reports, it’s a legit bombshell that might force Republicans into the uncomfortable — but not untried — position of defending quid pro quos. Sondland will testify that everyone at the White House and State Department knew that a quid pro quo existed tied to an investigation of the Bidens, and that it came from the top. But what was the quo?
Not the aid, mind you. We’ll get back to that later, but Sondland knows he’d better be prepared for the challenges to come from this statement:
Sondland’s 19-page opening statement — plus texts and emails not previously made public — is filled with new details and disclosures he omitted from both his over nine-hour hour closed-door deposition and a sworn declaration he made later. He will say his memory had been refreshed by other witnesses’ testimony, but lawmakers are likely to grill Sondland over his failure to produce the information previously and whether his testimony can be trusted after changing so many times.”
————
““Again,” Sondland writes, “everyone was in the loop.”
With that said, however, Sondland never actually ties Trump to a quid pro quo for the aid. He gets all the way down to the one-yard line, and then spikes the ball. The closest Sondland comes to tying military aid to a specific policy of quid pro quo for a Burisma probe is that it became “my belief” that the two were tied together:
———–
So it was all in his mind.
LikeLike
Oh and we know from today’s testimony that your Tweet you shared from the other day about Bolton’s supposed “drug deal” comment was fake news. Sorry try again.
LikeLike
Nothing.
Plenty more, a nice summation, for those who don’t want to waste a lot of time on this charade.
https://townhall.com/liveblog/2019/11/20/gordon-sondland-testifies-on-day-four-of-public-impeachment-inquiry-hearings-n74
LikeLike
Here’s CNN lying to their viewers in real time.
————
Wait! He’s getting another vision…..
LikeLike
————-
LikeLike
Interesting panel discussion (40 mins) on the media and 2020 — good remarks at about 15:00 by Joe Concha of The Hill (his 5-minute intro comments)
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/11/the-media-and-the-2020-election.php
LikeLike
And yet Ricky still doesn’t get it.
————-
But hey, by all means, continue what you and Dems are doing.
It’s working out extremely well.
For Trump. 🤣🤣🤣🤣
https://thehill.com/homenews/house/471057-poll-independent-opposition-to-impeachment-inquiry-jumps-10-points-in-last
“Poll: Opposition by independents to impeachment inquiry jumps 10 points”
LikeLike
What!
Ricky and his sources at 11;58AM left out key details in the Starr thing he posted above?
This is my shocked face. 🤨
Try again.
“Just one problem: In the video many on the Left referenced, Starr can clearly be heard prefacing his comments by saying “what we heard from the chairman just now” and making it clear “this is his [Schiff’s] position”:”
—————-
At least Jennifer Griffin had the decency to admit her mistake, unlike Ricky. That’s why his tweet above is defective. 7000 retweets of the fake news, but only 400 retweets of the correction. Why am I not shocked?
Frauds like Ricky are too busy tweeting the false one to notice the correction.
LikeLike
————-
Need a new meme Ricky. This one is busted.
LikeLike
More people calling Vindman a liar.
———
LikeLike
Keep it up Ricky and Trump might need to put you on payroll. 🙂
It’s seen that way, because it is.
LikeLike
The issue those voters cared about?
Those that Trump is stronger in. 🙂
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1196898612816551936
————
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1196898916148633600
LikeLike
Like I said…. 🙂
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1196901972965769221
————–
https://twitter.com/RyanGirdusky/status/1196900648593362945
LikeLike
AJ, can you respond to the substance of Ricky’s posts without calling him names (like “fraud”) or attributing motives (“your new BFFs, the Democrats”, “Ricky’s favorite creepy porn lawyer”)?
Regarding the Griffin/Starr mistake you said, “At least Jennifer Griffin had the decency to admit her mistake, unlike Ricky…Frauds like Ricky are too busy tweeting the false one to notice the correction.” Ricky posted Griffin’s mistaken tweet at 11:58. He couldn’t have noticed her correction then because it was not posted until 12:01. He’s probably had other things to do since then and might not even know about it.
You could have simply pointed out the error and invited Ricky to comment. Calling him a fraud was wrong.
I know you have a history of mutual name-calling with Ricky, but he’s toned it down lately. He doesn’t say anything about you in any of his posts today. Can you do likewise?
Are you Ricky’s brother in Christ? Are your political differences bigger than that? Are you speaking “only what is helpful for building others up, that it may benefit those who listen”? (Eph 4:29)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Let’s see Kevin,
He comes here daily, insults me, calls me a cultist, uneducated, and worse, all on a blog I take the time to pay for and maintain by myself. He’s been wrong since day one, hasn’t once apologized, or given a mea culpa, and continues to push things he knows are lies, and then won’t own up to it. He has questioned peoples’ salvation and walk simply based on who they voted for, he has acted in a most unforgiving manner.
I’ve lost patience, I’ve grown tired of it. And I’ve also noted that but for a few, no one ever says a word about it. I’ve grown weary of this game and am even considering tossing in the whole deal. Were it not for the rest of you I may have already.
So in a word.
No.
But I can promise you this. It ends soon one way or the other. Rather than continue acting poorly myself, which I acknowledge my role in doing willfully, I will do what I have been avoiding. I’m banning Ricky. As a result, anonymous comments will have to go away too. Log in and own it, or don’t say it.
This is where I’m at. Nothing personal Kevin, not directed at you specifically, but since you brought it up…..
LikeLike
I agree with Kevin. (I can’t “like” something now.)
But I have to admit that the Democrats have already passed the bounds of sanity.
I’ll be glad when this farce is over. Wasted lots of TV time. I can’t watch it.
(I have the BBC channel on. I turn my TV on because the screen shows the phone number calling when the phone rings. But I mute it most of the time.)
LikeLike
I see how history has made you feel that way, AJ. It just seems to me that he’s been toning it down lately and I was hoping for a lasting peace.
I have called him out more than once when I thought he was behaving badly, so I hope you don’t feel I’m picking on you.
I do appreciate your providing the forum, and it’s certainly yours to conduct as you see fit. I value the information you provide, as I value the information that comes from others, and I appreciate the exchange of opinions and arguments that makes me think.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ, if you admit that you are the one acting poorly now, if Ricky has not committed anything “ban-worthy” since he came back anonymously, then is banning him really getting rid of the problem? I admit I usually ignore the news and politics thread now, because I just don’t care as much about Trump as you guys do. I’d far rather have this thread focus on real news (of which the current impeachment is only part, not all).
If I count correctly, the first 33 posts on this thread are 26 AJ (some of them very long with lots of screenshots, and sometimes 6 or 7 in a row), 6 Ricky, and 1 someone else (DJ).
People sometimes can’t get on here to log on and end up posting anonymously by accident or posting anonymously but putting their name at the end of their post. Anonymous posting doesn’t seem (to me) to be the problem. It is your blog, your rules, but might I suggest different ones instead, at least for the political thread? For example:
No one can make more than two posts in a row, unless at least four hours have elapsed without further comments. When making comments about another poster on this blog, the poster can only mention that person’s name or screen name, not adjectives or nouns about him. For example, “In her 11:15 post, DJ quotes this sentence.” And when referring to groups of people, terms used cannot be derisive, but must be terms the group would use about itself. For instance, “Trump supporters” or “Never Trumpers” are terms the groups might use of themselves, but “Trumpkins” or “idiots” are not.
You might even say that a person can give only his own opinion of the news event being posted, NOT what he perceives another person’s perspective to be. For example, rather than saying “Never Trumpers aren’t going to like this new proof that they are all liars,” the poster might say “This seems to me to support Person A’s testimony that Person B lied on the stand last week.”
Make this thread one in which rules of journalism (not the messy, dirty kind, the respectable kind) apply–and in which people think of each other as fellow Christians. Learning to debate in a civil manner is actually a useful skill, and incorporating actual rules for the discussion can help that.
My two cents. I grew up with five brothers (and so far about 20 nephews), and have seen my share of debating–but it can be done poorly or well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
AJ is right to ban me.
Perhaps someone else will post the conservative or factual mainstream articles that I have been posting.
I have never questioned anyone’s salvation based on how he/she voted. I did question whether there was any evidence that Trump had ever heard the Gospel, but I made clear that was not an attack on Trump.
I do know exactly how to get under AJ’s skin. I don’t even read most of his posts and ignore the majority of the insults, but every now and then I will respond and stick the needle in. That is not good for either one of us.
As I have said before, this is a great virtual Sunday School class. The prayers and mutual encouragement are very important. It is going to be hard to discuss politics until Trump is gone, but y’all will have a better chance of doing it if I am not around.
FYI I was playing with my grandson all afternoon, then visiting with my mother, then eating supper with my wife and had no idea what was going on around here yesterday until late.
AJ, You have a good thing going here, and your people love you. Listen to them … on all matters except the ban. On that issue, you were right.
LikeLike
Cheryl,
Not looking for a debate, or your opinion.
I’ve made my decision and it’s final.
Case closed.
LikeLike