Media Lies

[Unregistered]

In this story by liberal Reuters

http://news.trust.org/item/20191026235000-1j5di

we have the theme "William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine" corroborated evidence against Trump provided by others (while not saying what that was) and "testified on Tuesday that Trump made the withheld aid contingent on Zelenskiy announcing the requested investigations."

Yet they do not address the obvious problem with this - the fact that:

a) there was never a public announcement of such an investigation by Ukraine
b) but nevertheless, the aid was released

Sort of proves the entire thing is a scam doesnt it? No wonder they are doing everything in secret, leaking selectively to liberal media allies. Shame on Reuters. Fortunately, they underestimate the intelligence of the American voting public. Everyone knows this is a scam. Reuters needs to take the word "trust" out of its URL/nameplate. We have none. Sorry.

Trump is the boss of the DOJ, an institution whose job it is to enforce US laws. If an American is breaking US laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Trump or any of his subordinates at the DOJ have the right, in fact, the obligation to pursue. Bidens shady dealings in Ukraine and China were the type a normal person would be prosecuted for. Democrats thesis is that because Biden may be the DNC nominee, he is above the law and Trump/DOJ cannot do their job.

This from the party that has been whining for the past 3 years that Trump believes he is above the law.

Evidently, if you want to get away with racketeering and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, all you have to do is register to run for president (as long as you are a Democrat of course). Biden sold influence (like Clinton did with Uranium 1) through his son, at the expense of our national security – they deserve to be investigated.

But go ahead and impeach Trump. The entire thing is totally transparent to American voters and it will help Trump win 2020 (regardless of how many fake polls your liberal media promotes - you know, the ones that oversample Democrats by 10%, progressively even higher if they want to show negative trends against Trump, and the same ones that predicted an easy Crooked Hillary victory). You people never learn.

[Unregistered]

Biden a total hypocrite.
Opposed Osama raid... by extension would have opposed the Al-Baghdadi raid.
Doesnt matter - Biden is cooked already anyway, Trump took him out.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-t...-baghdadi-raid

[Unregistered]

Trump is the boss of the DOJ, an institution whose job it is to enforce US laws. If an American is breaking US laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Trump or any of his subordinates at the DOJ have the right, in fact, the obligation to pursue. Bidens shady dealings in Ukraine and China were the type a normal person would be prosecuted for. Democrats thesis is that because Biden may be the DNC nominee, he is above the law and Trump/DOJ cannot do their job.

This from the party that has been whining for the past 3 years that Trump believes he is above the law.

Evidently, if you want to get away with racketeering and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, all you have to do is register to run for president (as long as you are a Democrat of course). Biden sold influence (like Clinton did with Uranium 1) through his son, at the expense of our national security – they deserve to be investigated.

But go ahead and impeach Trump. The entire thing is totally transparent to American voters and it will help Trump win 2020 (regardless of how many fake polls your liberal media promotes - you know, the ones that oversample Democrats by 10%, progressively even higher if they want to show negative trends against Trump, and the same ones that predicted an easy Crooked Hillary victory). You people never learn.

You don't seem to understand how the DOJ functions, international law, or abuse of power. The DOJ is not the persident's personal attorney. They cannot request a foreign power investigate the president's political rival. Especially when there is no foundation for doing so. You may not like Hunter being on the board of companies in Ukraine and China, I think it was stupid myself. But it's not illegal. So no, no one is saying Biden and his son are above the law.

Here are the facts about the Uranium One deal, though I doubt you'll take the time to read it and correct your deeply held beliefs about it. You're too invested in hating Hillary, assuming she's a nefarious master criminal, and calling her school yard names. I don't think you could handle the truth.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/facts-uranium-one/

[Unregistered]

Biden a total hypocrite.
Opposed Osama raid... by extension would have opposed the Al-Baghdadi raid.
Doesnt matter - Biden is cooked already anyway, Trump took him out.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/mark-t...-baghdadi-raid

Mark Thiessen is so far up Trump's backside, he sees the world through orange-tinted lenses. He's also either not very good at critical thinking, or he's quite skillful at manipulating people like you. He is speculating that Biden would have opposed the Al-Baghdadi raid when Biden actually said:

“I’m glad President Trump ordered the mission."

However, Joe then went on to echo what the Pentagon has also said prior to him making this statement. "But as more details of the raid emerge, it’s clear that this victory was not due to Donald Trump’s leadership. It happened despite his ineptitude as commander-in-chief."

According to our military command, Biden is absolutely right. It is true that as more details emerge, it appears Trump's decision to do an immediate full retreat rather than the scaled force reduction advocated by the DoD contributed to the timing of this raid - forced their hands really. Make no mistake, the brass is seriously pissed off at Trump over Syria and Ukraine. GOP is losing the military and that has long been one of their strongest bases of support. There's a reason the impeach banners at the Washington stadium were hung where they were.

[Unregistered]

Trump is the boss of the DOJ, an institution whose job it is to enforce US laws. If an American is breaking US laws, such as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Trump or any of his subordinates at the DOJ have the right, in fact, the obligation to pursue. Bidens shady dealings in Ukraine and China were the type a normal person would be prosecuted for. Democrats thesis is that because Biden may be the DNC nominee, he is above the law and Trump/DOJ cannot do their job.

This from the party that has been whining for the past 3 years that Trump believes he is above the law.

Evidently, if you want to get away with racketeering and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations, all you have to do is register to run for president (as long as you are a Democrat of course). Biden sold influence (like Clinton did with Uranium 1) through his son, at the expense of our national security – they deserve to be investigated.

But go ahead and impeach Trump. The entire thing is totally transparent to American voters and it will help Trump win 2020 (regardless of how many fake polls your liberal media promotes - you know, the ones that oversample Democrats by 10%, progressively even higher if they want to show negative trends against Trump, and the same ones that predicted an easy Crooked Hillary victory). You people never learn.

Look. focus on the President's conduct. If Biden did wrong, then that's a separate matter.

Do you agree - 1) a President should not request that a foreign government investigate an American citizen, especially when that citizen is the President's political opponent, 2) military aid to the Ukraine is taxpayer money that was allocated by Congress, a co-equal branch of government, 3) a president cannot condition receipt of military aid to a foreign gov't that was authorized by congress to an investigation of a political opponent.

If you agree with these points, you have little to no room but to impeach. The fact that you may agree with the president's policies should not affect your opinion of this behavior. It is corrupt and a total and complete abuse of power. If we let this stand, you have set a precedence that is extremely dangerous to this country, especially in today's information age. Do not view this through partisan glasses. There's a lot more at stake.

[Unregistered]

In this story by liberal Reuters

http://news.trust.org/item/20191026235000-1j5di

we have the theme "William Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine" corroborated evidence against Trump provided by others (while not saying what that was) and "testified on Tuesday that Trump made the withheld aid contingent on Zelenskiy announcing the requested investigations."

Yet they do not address the obvious problem with this - the fact that:

a) there was never a public announcement of such an investigation by Ukraine
b) but nevertheless, the aid was released

Sort of proves the entire thing is a scam doesnt it? No wonder they are doing everything in secret, leaking selectively to liberal media allies. Shame on Reuters. Fortunately, they underestimate the intelligence of the American voting public. Everyone knows this is a scam. Reuters needs to take the word "trust" out of its URL/nameplate. We have none. Sorry.

And at that time, before it was released, the Ukrainians didnt even know the money had been withheld! How could it be quid pro quo if they didnt even know?

That is a fact the libs are trying to cover up.

All the testimony from Obama era swamp creatures on what they "felt" or thought is completely irrelevant.

This is why we Trump supporters support impeachment. The entire thing is so transparently a scam. They are impeaching him because he was trying to pull the cover back on their pay-to-play corruption, and because they are emotional not logical... Libs are so stupid, they dont even realize they are making him stronger, ensuring his re-election. May the wind be at your back Dems in the impeachment process, God's Speed to you! By Christmas, slightly after - whatever, doesnt matter, just get it done! Thanks!

[Unregistered]

And at that time, before it was released, the Ukrainians didnt even know the money had been withheld! How could it be quid pro quo if they didnt even know?

You really should read the deposition transcripts and pay closer attention to primary sources. The Ukrainians did know the money had been withheld, and Sondland just this week confirmed they knew. Sondland who donated a boatload of money to Trump's inauguration and had his position as a Trump appointee. But that's actually irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they knew or not so don't pretend that fact would exonerate Trump even if it were true.

Let's dispense with the watering down with the use of "quid pro quo." That makes it sound like a neighbor saying, "if you bring in my mail while I'm on vacation, I'll feed your cat when you're on yours."

Trump confessed to extortion for personal gain. It really is that simple.

He released a summary of the call that he acknowledges is accurate and has literally begged people to read. That summary is a confession clearly demonstrating the request for a favor that has nothing to do with our national interest and everything to do with his reelection campaign. He asked for dirt on a political opponent in exchange for a WH visit, and we later learned had added leverage with the withheld aid. Aid critical in a hot war against a US adversary. Do you have any idea why Ukraine is such a critical ally in that region of the world?

The President of the United States sacrificed our national interest and Ukrainian independence to extort election assistance for personal gain. The memo he released and acknowledges is true confirms that beyond any doubt. If Obama or Clinton had done anything remotely like that I can only imagine the sh!t storm that would have broken out in Congress and across right-wing media.

One more time. POTUS committed extortion for personal gain. Let that sink in.

[Unregistered]

...All the testimony from Obama era swamp creatures on what they "felt" or thought is completely irrelevant.

Ambassador Taylor served in the Reagan and Bush administrations as well. Note that Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States ambassador to Ukraine and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was sworn in on June 5, 2006. Obama was sworn into office in 2009.

Ambassador Yovanovitch joined the US foreign service when Reagan was in office and became an ambassador during GWB's administration as well.

Fiona Hill Hill served as an intelligence officer under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 2006 to 2009. She was appointed in April 2017 by President Donald Trump as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on his National Security Council staff.

Lt. Col Vindman accepted an assignment with the National Security Council in July 2018 during the Trump administration.

Ambassador Sondland Sondland donated $1 million to the inaugural committee of Donald Trump. On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union. (Which feels a little on the swampy side, don't you think?"

George Kent has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. On September 4, 2018, he was appointed to his current position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Note the date of the appointment is well after Trump took office.

So now that we've dispensed with the rubbish that the key witnesses are "Obama era swamp creatures." Let's talk about whether what they thought and felt is relevant.

It absolutely is. Why? Precisely because of their positions, experience, and expertise. Their interpretation of the events they witnessed, conversations they had, texts they exchanged, phone calls they were included on, is exactly the point. They know what behavior is normal and what crosses ethical and legal lines. It's literally part of their job to know this.

If you are a witness in a civil or criminal proceeding, I can guarantee you in a deposition, the lawyers will ask you what you thought or felt about the evidence you are providing in the case. And that is exactly what the House Intelligence committee was doing. Taking depositions.

So congratulations on writing one sentence and being flat out wrong in two ways.

[Unregistered]

a) there was never a public announcement of such an investigation by Ukraine
b) but nevertheless, the aid was released

Sort of proves the entire thing is a scam doesnt it?

No, it doesn't. Let us know if you can't figure it out for yourself, and we need to explain why.

[Unregistered]

Ambassador Taylor served in the Reagan and Bush administrations as well. Note that Taylor was nominated by President George W. Bush to be United States ambassador to Ukraine and confirmed by the U.S. Senate on May 26, 2006, and was sworn in on June 5, 2006. Obama was sworn into office in 2009.

Ambassador Yovanovitch joined the US foreign service when Reagan was in office and became an ambassador during GWB's administration as well.

Fiona Hill Hill served as an intelligence officer under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama from 2006 to 2009. She was appointed in April 2017 by President Donald Trump as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs on his National Security Council staff.

Lt. Col Vindman accepted an assignment with the National Security Council in July 2018 during the Trump administration.

Ambassador Sondland Sondland donated $1 million to the inaugural committee of Donald Trump. On March 12, 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump selected Sondland to be the next United States ambassador to the European Union. (Which feels a little on the swampy side, don't you think?"

George Kent has worked for both Democratic and Republican administrations. On September 4, 2018, he was appointed to his current position as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs. Note the date of the appointment is well after Trump took office.

So now that we've dispensed with the rubbish that the key witnesses are "Obama era swamp creatures." Let's talk about whether what they thought and felt is relevant.

It absolutely is. Why? Precisely because of their positions, experience, and expertise. Their interpretation of the events they witnessed, conversations they had, texts they exchanged, phone calls they were included on, is exactly the point. They know what behavior is normal and what crosses ethical and legal lines. It's literally part of their job to know this.

If you are a witness in a civil or criminal proceeding, I can guarantee you in a deposition, the lawyers will ask you what you thought or felt about the evidence you are providing in the case. And that is exactly what the House Intelligence committee was doing. Taking depositions.

So congratulations on writing one sentence and being flat out wrong in two ways.

Well done. Hopefully your efforts to educate the village idiot won't be in vain.

[Unregistered]

Well done. Hopefully your efforts to educate the village idiot won't be in vain.

Thanks, but I suspect they will be. I used way too many words. I don't think he will slow down and read the post in its entirety before hitting Reply and sputtering some sort of nonsense about Obama or Clinton. I'm not confident he can do much more than skim and spew.

[Unregistered]

Well done. Hopefully your efforts to educate the village idiot won't be in vain.

Add to the very interesting list above is that Taylor was selected by Pompeo to return to Ukraine after they removed Yavanovitch as Ukrainian ambassador.

[Unregistered]

Thanks, but I suspect they will be. I used way too many words. I don't think he will slow down and read the post in its entirety before hitting Reply and sputtering some sort of nonsense about Obama or Clinton. I'm not confident he can do much more than skim and spew.

That sounds a lot like the guy in the white house. Anonymous says:

"Briefers were told early on in the administration not to bring in lengthy memos because “Trump wouldn’t read them.” The book also described the ways in which briefing material had to be simplified and broken down to a few points in a visual presentation. “PowerPoint was preferred because [Trump] is a visual learner,” recalls the author.

But the whittling down of the briefing process didn’t stop there, according to the excerpts. The author writes, “Then officials were told that the PowerPoint decks needed to be slimmed down. The president couldn’t digest too many slides. He needed more images to keep his interest — and fewer words.”

Further still, briefers were told “to cut back the overall message (on complicated issues such as military readiness or the federal budget) to just three main points,” but even doing that “was still too much.” Soon, the author notes, the best practice to briefing the president became “come in with one main point and repeat it — over and over again, even if the president inevitably goes off on tangents — until he gets it.”

This is the president of the United States, SMH

[Unregistered]

Well done. Hopefully your efforts to educate the village idiot won't be in vain.

Not possible. The information contradicts the frame that this is a witch hunt or coup by the Democrats. The cognitive bias and selection bias activate powerfully in Trump supporters. They are also a perfect illustration of Pommer's Law.