Should probably point out that American Oversight is mainly considered biased left wing due to their story selection and choices in headlines. They don't report inaccurate facts according to mediabiasfactcheck but aren't open about how they're funded.It doesnt look very non partisan too me, I clicked on one of their news articles from your link and saw a clear bias
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/american-oversight/
According to it's about page, the site is made by a guy called Dave van Zandt who studied Communications and has done extensive research on media biases and the role of media in politics. If you want to know where he leans politically, the about page says he's registered as non-affiliated.I wonder who fact checks https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
I apologize I wasn't familiar with that outlet and apparently their about page is what I cited.Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
I apologize I wasn't familiar with that outlet and apparently their about page is what I cited.
While I updated and edited my posts pertaining the linked website's as a left leaning source in their presentation of news articles, the big takeaway is still documents that were produced from the FOIA. These documents are now available to the general public and this shows Trump is currently obstructing congress as they are refusing to provide to congress documents and records that can be obtained by the general public through FOIA. These documents can be viewed independent of their leaning analysis for those who enjoy reading that sort of material.
Yet you presume that I don't also take issue with it when it was in the Obama Administration? I want more government transparency. Although, there is that other qualifier that Obama wasn't facing an impeachment inquiry. Which makes it all the more dire to take such a policy when dealing w/ congressional oversight.Not even gonna dispute that's going on, because it's standard fucking practice for the executive branch and has always been. Do you not remember Obama's administration blocking witnesses from testifying, ignoring subpoenas, refusing to provide records/documents?????? There's nothing specifically "Trump" about this ... it's just how they handle their shit. When someone says your ass is probably dirty, you either deny it, admit it, or try not to respond at all. You don't bend over and spread your cheeks for inspection.
Yet you presume that I don't also take issue with it when it was in the Obama Administration?
His account wasn't registered during the Obama administration.Were you posting here back then to criticize the Obama administration for it?
His account wasn't registered during the Obama administration.
Heh... I predicted earlier that Trump would distantiate himself from Giuliani. Trump now claimed that the guy was in Ukraine doing his own thing rather than doing the president's bidding.
Stay tuned for irrefutable evidence from Giuliani...
(what? It's not like Trump is doing loyalty. You didn't think Giuliani hasn't learned anything from the Cohen affaire?)
According to it's about page, the site is made by a guy called Dave van Zandt who studied Communications and has done extensive research on media biases and the role of media in politics. If you want to know where he leans politically, the about page says he's registered as non-affiliated.
At this point if these things can be confirmed as this article suggests, if the american public doesn't think that Trump is guilty of Quid Pro Quo (Attempted Bribery) by with holding security assistance, then it is the fault of the democrats for not making use of the public hearings to appropriately present the facts before the public just as much as it would be for the republicans for attempting to obfuscate the facts.
It is apparent you didn't read the article so there isn't much point conversing with you, but for others who have some appetite to actually READ and DISCUSS on this thread, well those are the ones this is targeted towards. You have proven time and time again to assert into a discussion with nothing substantive. If you quote something from the article you don't agree with then that would be appropriate. At this point, all you have provided is equivalent to a shit post.He is only guilty of doing his job. Holding up foreign aid is not a crime. What's he's accused of his holding up foreign aid for dirt on Biden. The Liberals can't prove this so now; are they changing their basis for impeachment again? By the way, foreign aid is held up all of the time for various reasons and it always comes with conditions. We just don't hand out money to anyone who asks and then allow them to spend it any way they like. Of course, all of this is being somehow confirmed by assumption. Bleh, more mindless Liberal dribble. Nothing new, nothing damning. Move along.
I'm not asserting that Sondland did it on purpose, I can't prove that. But it is curious that Castor began to assert it was definitively sept 9 in his questioning of Sondland despite Sondland continuing to give disclaim I can't recall the date exactly. The republicans were likely aware of how this call could be used to assist in incriminating trump and wanted to get in front of it by reframing to dissociate the correct context of when the call occurred. Without me copy/pasting large swaths of the article (which I admit takes approx 10min to read so there is a time investment required) context of what the date of the call can be applied is entirely different and torpedoes Trump's paper defense surrounding the call. It switches from a weak defense to an incriminating piece of evidence. I'll reread and try to excerpt a few more pieces if desired but its really best to read it in its entirety. (I'm not sure if you personally have read it, but I'm trying to speak generally to anyone on this thread).I... Honestly don't see much relevance in a mix up dates (all me whom I called 2 months ago and I could easily be wrong two days as well).
It would have been an important point for Republicans because it could show that Trump didn't make that call in response to democrats starting an investigation... But it has since been revealed that he knew about the whistle blower rapport 'earlier'.
I was also familiar with the context. Trump didn't so much say "I want no qui pro quo" but "I don't want a quid pro quo... I just want to do the ukranians to do the right thing".
Which is like saying "I don't want to commit a crime... I just want the bank employees to hand me their money in order not to get shot by me".
@cots You also never addressed my question on this thread in post #238.
It's not within Trumps power to withhold aid. The problem is he's over stepping his bounds as president. The are certain legal code guidelines for how to do this, getting more people involved so that presidents don't have too much power and abuse that power. It has to go through a process before its decided to withhold aid. Trump is not honoring the laws he vowed to withhold and not respecting what our founding fathers and us the people that make these laws. That is not a very patriotic thing to do and its basically giving kings power to a country that's suppose limit power of a single person, and all of us are suppose to be the ones involved in the decision making process.PHASE 2
(epic failure in the making)
House Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Devin Nunes told Fox News host Judge Jeanine Pirro Saturday, that phase two of the impeachment hearings will start this week with Chairman Jerrold Nadler who will deliberate on the constitutionality of impeachment.
Devin Nunes, on Justice with Judge Jeanine.
“Jerry Nadler has been in the witness protection program for several months after he botched the (Robert) Mueller probe. We’re going to see how this goes supposedly they’re going to talk about the constitutionality of impeachment,” said Nunes.
So far the Democrats have not been able to show any evidence that President Donald Trump withheld any aid from Ukraine in exchange for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden. In fact, Office of Management and Budget Mark Sandy told lawmakers during Schiff’s hearing that the only reason the money was held up for a short period of time was Trump’s concern that other “countries were not contributing more to Ukraine.
The controversy surrounds questionable actions around Hunter Biden’s paid position on the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. His firm Rosemont Seneca Partners LLC, “received regular transfers into one of its accounts — usually more than $166,000 a month — from Burisma from spring 2014 through fall 2015, during a period when Vice President Biden was the main U.S. official dealing with Ukraine and its tense relations with Russia,” according to reports.
No Evidence For Trump Impeachment
Nunes added, “during the (President Richard) Nixon impeachment hearings you had an actual break in – you knew what the crime was. During the (President Bill) Clinton impeachment you knew that he had lied to a grand jury. I think for two weeks one of the things we were able to expose is that not only did they not have a quid pro quo, they actually had to change quid pro quo to bribery until John Ratcliff had to pointed out that the only person ever accused of bribery in Adam Schiff’s star basement down in the capital is Hunter Biden.”