The Daily Blow by Blow Impeachment Hearings and Trial of Donald Trump
- Thread starter DIY-HP-LED
- Start date
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Gordon Sondland Testifies: Pence, Pompeo Were "In The Loop" On Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
Stephen Colbert's LIVE monologue after the fifth Democratic debate begins with a recap of the day's bombshell testimony from Ambassador Gordon Sondland in the House impeachment inquiry.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Sondland spilled the beans all over the floor, it looks like most of Trump's cabinet is gonna go to prison, including William Barr. Only idiots and racist traitors could support Trump and this garbage.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sondland's spectacular example of throwing your colleagues under the bus
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN
www.cnn.com
(CNN)This story was originally published in the November 21 edition of CNN's Meanwhile in America, the daily email about US politics for global readers. Sign up here to receive it every weekday morning.
That almighty crash you heard coming from the direction of the United States was the implosion of President Donald Trump's impeachment defense.
Red letter days rarely live up to expectations in Washington, but Wednesday did. Gordon Sondland, the central figure in the plot to pressure Ukraine, confirmed on live television that a quid pro quo scheme existed -- and that the US President directed it.
In a spectacular example of throwing your colleagues under the bus, he also said that several top governmental figures were in on the caper. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence and White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney are all now rubbing tire tracks off their suits.
Sondland left a few scraps for Trump's protectors — namely his comment that the President never personally directly told him to hold back military aid to Ukraine. But the avuncular ambassador to the European Union, who swigged from a collection of paper cups and water bottles during hours of testimony, seemed to have made a choice: He was not going down with the ship to protect the President.
Despite his often sketchy memory, Sondland is particularly credible in Trump's world because he is not a career civil servant. Far from the mythic "Never Trumper" deep state bureaucrat, Sondland is a multimillionaire hotel tycoon like Trump -- and greased his path to ambassadorship with a $1 million donation to the President's inauguration.
So what happens now?
First, just to clear up any lingering doubts, the House will impeach Trump. Second, Republicans who mostly claimed they were too busy to watch Sondland must now twist into even more painful contortions to deny Trump did wrong — as they surely will in a subsequent Senate trial.
Don't look for Trump to do a Nixon by flashing a victory sign and climbing aboard his helicopter for a flight into political retirement. (In fact, he actually emerged from the White House as Sondland testified, with alternative talking points etched on an Air Force One pad in a thick felt-tip pen.) None of Wednesday's drama is likely to shift the political polarization that means Trump will survive in office.
But no one can now say they didn't know what was going on.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sondland's spectacular example of throwing your colleagues under the bus
Analysis by Stephen Collinson, CNN
Sondland's spectacular example of throwing your colleagues under the bus | CNN
Red letter days rarely live up to expectations in Washington, but Wednesday did. Gordon Sondland, the central figure in the plot to pressure Ukraine, confirmed on live television that a quid pro quo scheme existed -- and that the US President directed it.
(CNN)This story was originally published in the November 21 edition of CNN's Meanwhile in America, the daily email about US politics for global readers. Sign up here to receive it every weekday morning.
That almighty crash you heard coming from the direction of the United States was the implosion of President Donald Trump's impeachment defense.
Red letter days rarely live up to expectations in Washington, but Wednesday did. Gordon Sondland, the central figure in the plot to pressure Ukraine, confirmed on live television that a quid pro quo scheme existed -- and that the US President directed it.
In a spectacular example of throwing your colleagues under the bus, he also said that several top governmental figures were in on the caper. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Vice President Mike Pence and White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney are all now rubbing tire tracks off their suits.
Sondland left a few scraps for Trump's protectors — namely his comment that the President never personally directly told him to hold back military aid to Ukraine. But the avuncular ambassador to the European Union, who swigged from a collection of paper cups and water bottles during hours of testimony, seemed to have made a choice: He was not going down with the ship to protect the President.
Despite his often sketchy memory, Sondland is particularly credible in Trump's world because he is not a career civil servant. Far from the mythic "Never Trumper" deep state bureaucrat, Sondland is a multimillionaire hotel tycoon like Trump -- and greased his path to ambassadorship with a $1 million donation to the President's inauguration.
So what happens now?
First, just to clear up any lingering doubts, the House will impeach Trump. Second, Republicans who mostly claimed they were too busy to watch Sondland must now twist into even more painful contortions to deny Trump did wrong — as they surely will in a subsequent Senate trial.
Don't look for Trump to do a Nixon by flashing a victory sign and climbing aboard his helicopter for a flight into political retirement. (In fact, he actually emerged from the White House as Sondland testified, with alternative talking points etched on an Air Force One pad in a thick felt-tip pen.) None of Wednesday's drama is likely to shift the political polarization that means Trump will survive in office.
But no one can now say they didn't know what was going on.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Credible Sondland is no Never Trumper. House hearings now need Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney.
'We followed the president's orders,' Trump donor-turned-ambassador tells impeachment investigators: Our view
The Editorial Board
USA TODAY
In recent days, President Donald Trump's go-to defense has been to label a witness against him in impeachment proceedings as a "Never Trumper" — typically a Republican who never supported him and is committed to taking him down.
Gordon Sondland is no Never Trumper.
A wealthy Republican hotelier who contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee, Sondland was rewarded for his loyalty with a coveted ambassadorship to the European Union. He could reach the president with his personal cellphone and felt comfortable talking with him in a familiar patter sprinkled with four-letter words.
That makes Sondland's testimony Wednesday — directly linking the president and his men to a quid pro quo on Ukraine — all the more credible and crushing. Among Sondland's most damning revelations during his day-long testimony to House impeachment investigators:
Take directions from Giuliani
► Trump expressly directed Sondland, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, to take directions on Ukraine matters from Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. And Giuliani thereafter laid out the this-for-that terms: President Volodymyr Zelensky would only get a White House meeting if he publicly announced investigations that would politically benefit Trump. "So we followed the president's orders," Sondland testified
.
►Sondland also became convinced that nearly $400 million in desperately needed military assistance for Ukraine, which is embroiled in a proxy war with Russia, would be provided only if Zelensky publicly promised the investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 presidential election, which contradicts findings by the U.S. intelligence community that it was Russia that interfered. Trump spelled out his interest in Zelensky investigating these issues during a crucial July 25 phone call between the two leaders.
►Several senior administration officials were fully appraised of these demands on the Ukrainians, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, then-national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. "They knew what we were doing and why," Sondland said. "Not once do I recall encountering objection."
'Everyone was in the loop'
By September, Zelensky was ready to announce on CNN the launch of investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. But as word of the quid pro quo began to surface in early September, the White House elected to release the Ukraine's military assistance.
"Everyone was in the loop," Sondland said more than once.
So out of a bevy of administration officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, only one person — the unnamed whistleblower — had the courage to report all of this nefarious actively to an intelligence service's inspector general and, ultimately, to Congress.
The House committee conducting the impeachment inquiry — and the American public — is now entitled to hear from Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney and others about what they knew and how they responded. It also needs access to the State Department documents being withheld from investigators.
In the meantime, Sondland's testimony adds to a mounting body of evidence that Trump personally directed a scheme to abuse the power of his office to coerce a foreign government in order to gain advantage in the 2020 election.
The main question remaining is whether congressional Republicans are prepared to do anything about it.
'We followed the president's orders,' Trump donor-turned-ambassador tells impeachment investigators: Our view
The Editorial Board
USA TODAY
Credible Sondland is no Never Trumper. House hearings now need Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney.
'We followed the president's orders,' Trump donor-turned-ambassador tells House impeachment investigators. Now call Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney: Our view
www.usatoday.com
In recent days, President Donald Trump's go-to defense has been to label a witness against him in impeachment proceedings as a "Never Trumper" — typically a Republican who never supported him and is committed to taking him down.
Gordon Sondland is no Never Trumper.
A wealthy Republican hotelier who contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural committee, Sondland was rewarded for his loyalty with a coveted ambassadorship to the European Union. He could reach the president with his personal cellphone and felt comfortable talking with him in a familiar patter sprinkled with four-letter words.
That makes Sondland's testimony Wednesday — directly linking the president and his men to a quid pro quo on Ukraine — all the more credible and crushing. Among Sondland's most damning revelations during his day-long testimony to House impeachment investigators:
Take directions from Giuliani
► Trump expressly directed Sondland, along with Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Kurt Volker, the special envoy to Ukraine, to take directions on Ukraine matters from Trump personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani. And Giuliani thereafter laid out the this-for-that terms: President Volodymyr Zelensky would only get a White House meeting if he publicly announced investigations that would politically benefit Trump. "So we followed the president's orders," Sondland testified
.
►Sondland also became convinced that nearly $400 million in desperately needed military assistance for Ukraine, which is embroiled in a proxy war with Russia, would be provided only if Zelensky publicly promised the investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and a theory that Ukraine had meddled in the 2016 presidential election, which contradicts findings by the U.S. intelligence community that it was Russia that interfered. Trump spelled out his interest in Zelensky investigating these issues during a crucial July 25 phone call between the two leaders.
►Several senior administration officials were fully appraised of these demands on the Ukrainians, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, then-national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. "They knew what we were doing and why," Sondland said. "Not once do I recall encountering objection."
'Everyone was in the loop'
By September, Zelensky was ready to announce on CNN the launch of investigations into Biden and the 2016 election. But as word of the quid pro quo began to surface in early September, the White House elected to release the Ukraine's military assistance.
"Everyone was in the loop," Sondland said more than once.
So out of a bevy of administration officials sworn to uphold the Constitution, only one person — the unnamed whistleblower — had the courage to report all of this nefarious actively to an intelligence service's inspector general and, ultimately, to Congress.
The House committee conducting the impeachment inquiry — and the American public — is now entitled to hear from Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney and others about what they knew and how they responded. It also needs access to the State Department documents being withheld from investigators.
In the meantime, Sondland's testimony adds to a mounting body of evidence that Trump personally directed a scheme to abuse the power of his office to coerce a foreign government in order to gain advantage in the 2020 election.
The main question remaining is whether congressional Republicans are prepared to do anything about it.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
Opinion
Gordon Sondland Leaves Us With No Other Option
The case is simple, and the evidence supporting impeachment is now crystal clear.
By Noah Bookbinder
Mr. Bookbinder is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Nov. 20, 2019
www.nytimes.com
History will remember Wednesday as the day a United States ambassador testified under oath before Congress and laid out a clear, simple and damning case that President Trump abused the power of his office and committed bribery, an act for which the Constitution leaves but one outcome.
The evidence was already overwhelming, but now there can be no question about it: Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony was the smoking gun.
This is largely because the facts presented are simple. At the direction of Mr. Trump and Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, United States officials communicated to the government of Ukraine that a White House visit for the new Ukrainian president was contingent on the Ukrainian president publicly announcing investigations into the dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden and a conspiracy theory about the 2016 elections. Later, a congressionally appropriated $391 million military aid package was added to the leverage.
Mr. Sondland, a Trump appointee and million-dollar Trump inauguration donor, testified under oath that there was an explicit quid pro quo at the direction of President Trump, through Mr. Giuliani. The facts are not meaningfully in dispute, because Mr. Sondland’s testimony corroborates the accounts of multiple strong and reliable witnesses. Mr. Sondland made clear that there are even more people and additional documents that could corroborate his testimony, but the White House is blocking their release. The absence of these additional documents and witnesses makes it abundantly clear that the administration is obstructing Congress.
Mr. Sondland is not some Democratic Party plant; he is hardly, as the president and his allies have accused others of being, a “Never Trumper.” Today’s testimony came from a political supporter and appointee of the president.
In a few bombshell exchanges, Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the committee’s Democratic counsel, Daniel Goldman, had Mr. Sondland walk the public through each element of the federal bribery statute. Mr. Trump corruptly demanded something of value — the announcement of investigations into his political rivals — for his personal benefit, in exchange for President Trump’s performance of official acts: both hosting a White House meeting and, as Mr. Sondland came to believe, releasing the security aid.
That President Trump used his personal lawyer as a go-between to funnel these demands to Ambassador Sondland and the Ukrainians does not protect the president. As Mr. Sondland noted, “We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the president directed us to do so” and “Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States.” In fact, Mr. Trump’s insistence on using his lawyer to obtain a personal benefit at the expense of official United States policy is powerful evidence of the president’s corrupt intent.
That President Trump’s conduct in Ukraine very likely violates the bribery statute is only part of the calculus that Congress must now undertake. Bribery is one of the Constitution’s specific prohibitions on executive conduct, second only to treason as a reason for impeaching a president. And constitutional bribery is defined more broadly than the statute — the Constitution was written well before the federal bribery statute and was meant to capture a host of executive malfeasance that might not be captured within the narrow confines of our specific federal laws.
If we are to be, in the words of John Adams, “a government of laws, not of men,” then there is no other option after today’s testimony than the impeachment, conviction and removal from office of President Trump.
As the impeachment proceedings move forward, our representatives in Congress must consider the foundational precept of our republic: that our government and its institutions of diplomacy and law enforcement function at the behest and for the benefit of the people of the United States — rather than a powerful individual or a foreign government. Our criminal laws governing the behavior of public officials are one articulation of that principle. But they are not the only consideration here. In fact, whether the president and his cronies’ actions violate each element of the bribery statute, in a way that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, is a distraction. The very possibility that the criminal law has been broken is evidence that President Trump participated in multiple abuses of power.
There is now little doubt that President Trump and his associates could face federal indictment for this scheme, if and when there is a Justice Department committed to fully and fairly consider it. But the operative question facing our elected representatives, and our country, is whether the president should be allowed to continue serving in an office of public trust.
To call for the removal of a president is not something that should be done easily. The actions of the president must be so unforgivable, the abuses of power so heinous, that it is the only option for the good of the nation. In this case, it is.
There are many pundits who will opine that removing a president is divisive and unprecedented. It is true that no president has ever been removed from office through the impeachment process. But that just speaks to how rare it has been for a president to even get to the point we are at now. And while it is certainly true that there are people who would be upset by his removal from office, the far greater risk lies in allowing this president, with this explicitly illegal, immoral and unjust track record of abusing the power of his office for his personal electoral benefit, to participate in future elections. Doing so would deprive the people of their constitutional right to choose their leader in a free, open and fair election.
It is for the love of country, and for the rights of its citizens, that the president must be removed. And it is an act of love for the dignity and respect of the office of the president of the United States that this president must be removed before he further sullies it with his abuses of power. Congress faces the uncomfortable duty to act to redeem the presidency by no longer allowing it to remain in this condition.
After today, there can be no question that the only action left for patriotic Americans is to call for the impeachment, conviction and removal of President Trump.
Gordon Sondland Leaves Us With No Other Option
The case is simple, and the evidence supporting impeachment is now crystal clear.
By Noah Bookbinder
Mr. Bookbinder is the executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Nov. 20, 2019
Opinion | Gordon Sondland Leaves Us With No Other Option (Published 2019)
The case is simple, and the evidence supporting impeachment is now crystal clear.
History will remember Wednesday as the day a United States ambassador testified under oath before Congress and laid out a clear, simple and damning case that President Trump abused the power of his office and committed bribery, an act for which the Constitution leaves but one outcome.
The evidence was already overwhelming, but now there can be no question about it: Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s testimony was the smoking gun.
This is largely because the facts presented are simple. At the direction of Mr. Trump and Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer, United States officials communicated to the government of Ukraine that a White House visit for the new Ukrainian president was contingent on the Ukrainian president publicly announcing investigations into the dealings of former Vice President Joe Biden and a conspiracy theory about the 2016 elections. Later, a congressionally appropriated $391 million military aid package was added to the leverage.
Mr. Sondland, a Trump appointee and million-dollar Trump inauguration donor, testified under oath that there was an explicit quid pro quo at the direction of President Trump, through Mr. Giuliani. The facts are not meaningfully in dispute, because Mr. Sondland’s testimony corroborates the accounts of multiple strong and reliable witnesses. Mr. Sondland made clear that there are even more people and additional documents that could corroborate his testimony, but the White House is blocking their release. The absence of these additional documents and witnesses makes it abundantly clear that the administration is obstructing Congress.
Mr. Sondland is not some Democratic Party plant; he is hardly, as the president and his allies have accused others of being, a “Never Trumper.” Today’s testimony came from a political supporter and appointee of the president.
In a few bombshell exchanges, Adam Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the committee’s Democratic counsel, Daniel Goldman, had Mr. Sondland walk the public through each element of the federal bribery statute. Mr. Trump corruptly demanded something of value — the announcement of investigations into his political rivals — for his personal benefit, in exchange for President Trump’s performance of official acts: both hosting a White House meeting and, as Mr. Sondland came to believe, releasing the security aid.
That President Trump used his personal lawyer as a go-between to funnel these demands to Ambassador Sondland and the Ukrainians does not protect the president. As Mr. Sondland noted, “We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the president directed us to do so” and “Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States.” In fact, Mr. Trump’s insistence on using his lawyer to obtain a personal benefit at the expense of official United States policy is powerful evidence of the president’s corrupt intent.
That President Trump’s conduct in Ukraine very likely violates the bribery statute is only part of the calculus that Congress must now undertake. Bribery is one of the Constitution’s specific prohibitions on executive conduct, second only to treason as a reason for impeaching a president. And constitutional bribery is defined more broadly than the statute — the Constitution was written well before the federal bribery statute and was meant to capture a host of executive malfeasance that might not be captured within the narrow confines of our specific federal laws.
If we are to be, in the words of John Adams, “a government of laws, not of men,” then there is no other option after today’s testimony than the impeachment, conviction and removal from office of President Trump.
As the impeachment proceedings move forward, our representatives in Congress must consider the foundational precept of our republic: that our government and its institutions of diplomacy and law enforcement function at the behest and for the benefit of the people of the United States — rather than a powerful individual or a foreign government. Our criminal laws governing the behavior of public officials are one articulation of that principle. But they are not the only consideration here. In fact, whether the president and his cronies’ actions violate each element of the bribery statute, in a way that is provable beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, is a distraction. The very possibility that the criminal law has been broken is evidence that President Trump participated in multiple abuses of power.
There is now little doubt that President Trump and his associates could face federal indictment for this scheme, if and when there is a Justice Department committed to fully and fairly consider it. But the operative question facing our elected representatives, and our country, is whether the president should be allowed to continue serving in an office of public trust.
To call for the removal of a president is not something that should be done easily. The actions of the president must be so unforgivable, the abuses of power so heinous, that it is the only option for the good of the nation. In this case, it is.
There are many pundits who will opine that removing a president is divisive and unprecedented. It is true that no president has ever been removed from office through the impeachment process. But that just speaks to how rare it has been for a president to even get to the point we are at now. And while it is certainly true that there are people who would be upset by his removal from office, the far greater risk lies in allowing this president, with this explicitly illegal, immoral and unjust track record of abusing the power of his office for his personal electoral benefit, to participate in future elections. Doing so would deprive the people of their constitutional right to choose their leader in a free, open and fair election.
It is for the love of country, and for the rights of its citizens, that the president must be removed. And it is an act of love for the dignity and respect of the office of the president of the United States that this president must be removed before he further sullies it with his abuses of power. Congress faces the uncomfortable duty to act to redeem the presidency by no longer allowing it to remain in this condition.
After today, there can be no question that the only action left for patriotic Americans is to call for the impeachment, conviction and removal of President Trump.
tpdeharts
Member
this is not even close to what they call a trial not a legal court USA system
tpdeharts
Member
yea this will never work at end of day
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
not english komrade good. wtf does that jibberish mean? this is called an inquiry to see all the evidence and then they vote to impeach or not. and then the Russian Senate will have a sham trial like the sham Barr redacted Mueller report.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
yes it is, this is exactly how impeachments are carried out, they are following the letter of the law perfectly...read something before commenting about it, look up the rules of impeachment before you say anything about impeachment
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
it won't work. trump won't get impeached. the Republicans led by McConnel will flatly refuse to impeach him, no matter that he's so obviously guilty that Helen Keller can see it....
but there is no fucking way trump is getting elected again after this many Americans get to watch this side show less than a year from election day...some people refuse to open their eyes, but many many more are seeing the light, and moving into it, out of the darkness....join the light....
and it's just about to be a bad time to be a republican in this country...expect them to lose at least half of the offices they hold nationwide, at least half the influence they now hold. and people will remember...any republican that stays in office won't be able to get anything done. they will run into endless closed doors, unanswered calls, ignored texts....they will become pariahs, "the children of trump"....and they won't find a friendly face or an open hand.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
There will be a criminal trial over this, one for conspiracy and it will involve Trump and most of his cabinet. They all are ridiculously easy to convict, the evidence is overwhelming and we haven't even seen 10% of it yet, the WH is illegally withholding documents and ordering witnesses to ignore subpoenas. All of these assholes, including Trump are gonna die in prison over this, Bill Barr won't be AG for long and is involved in this up to his eyeballs.
Get a grip on reality for fuck sake, ya sound like a Russian, an idiot and a racist traitor. Part of the deal was to blame Ukraine for the 2016 election interference and clear Russia and Putin who were proven guilty of it. You're no American patriot, you support an incompetent criminal traitor and are a participant in treason.
londonfog
Well-Known Member
Guy what do you expect ? Trump supporters are not very bright. Study test show your average Trump supporter scores pathetically low on the WAIS. Many say these studies are inaccurate due to the fact Trumpets are afraid to take any test requiring intelligence.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
Your Russian accent is atrocious
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
This investigation is just getting going Roger and there are lots of other witnesses coming, the house still has not used it's inherent powers. The impeachment trial subpoenas for documents and witnesses will be signed by the chief justice of SCOTUS...
I think it will a secret senate ballot (a simple majority is required) and Mitch will fuck Donald, if he wants any chance of holding the senate majority he will have to. The polls are starting to change and Donald will be down to his hardcore base by the time the trial begins and it won't be good for the GOP at all if they acquit him.
rkymtnman
Well-Known Member
no i st louis cardinals fan of american baseball sitting at desk with computer.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
i agree, but it wasn't good for the gop to endorse trump to begin with, yet here we are....if they can endorse someone with the reputation trump had before the elections, who will they endorse next time? a clone made out of the dna of hitler, pol pot, and jack the ripper? i'm not sure they are capable of rational decision making anymore...trying to predict what the insane will do by using logical thought is not a good way to use your time...
abalonehx
Well-Known Member
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
It's starting to get amusing, watching what way the rats are gonna run when they are cornered by the facts. Nothing we can do about the situation, but it is nonetheless satisfying seeing justice starting to be done. I think the GOP is finished as a national party and no matter what they do about Trump they are still screwed, they will lose the senate over this, even if they convict Trump. If the democrats win it all in 2020 they will drive many more nails in the republican coffin with the many appropriate and required investigations. H.R.-1 will eliminate the GOP's advantages with gerrymandering, voter suppression and dark money. When they bring this ugly fucking monster to its knees they are gonna cut its throat, not kiss it, and that means having a good look at FOX news and the other propaganda organs of Russia with a blue ribbon panel of journalists.
I joined facebook the other day and the security you have to jump through is incredible, my account is suspended and they wanted a picture of my ID! I didn't post anything much there either and nothing political, but had a half dozen holds and security checks, they had 5 billion fake accounts last year and the user base is only 2.5 billion. They a scared shitless about coming government regulation and they should be, ditto for the other social media platforms.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
Yeah it is not about him going to jail, it is about him failing to uphold his sworn duty as President of the United States. He broke the law withholding the whistle blower complaint longer than he was legally allowed and triggered the impeachment inquiry.
It already is, President Trump is trying to have zero oversight in every aspect of his administration and forced the Democrats to go down this road. This is the only way to get some real answers to real questions by Dear Leader.
They even keep going back to the 'look at the letter we made for you to see, it is all you need to know'. Just like Barr's 4 page 'summary'.
Roger A. Shrubber
Well-Known Member
Facebook, Amazon, Twitter...all too big for our own good...i was under the impression that monopolies were illegal in this country, that our economy was built on the concept of fair competition. one company getting so large that it can control an industry and crush any competition is not "fair competition"...
and since when did going to a store in any way authorize that store to stalk us and try to obtain our personal information? if i catch the checker from the winn-dixie following me and taking notes, they better be about how nice my ass is, not where i'm going and who i'm talking to about what...because that would be illegal. i can't understand how doing the exact same thing online isn't illegal, as well?
and since when did going to a store in any way authorize that store to stalk us and try to obtain our personal information? if i catch the checker from the winn-dixie following me and taking notes, they better be about how nice my ass is, not where i'm going and who i'm talking to about what...because that would be illegal. i can't understand how doing the exact same thing online isn't illegal, as well?