dmacleod comments

Posted in: Trump impeachment hearings focus on Ukraine pressure campaign See in context

It’s first hand for the people talking. Taylor said his aide told him he heard the person talking. so Taylor provided Third hand hearsay . . .

False. Ambassador Taylor's testimony is based on conversations which he had with Ambassador Gordon Sondland, who had direct knowledge of both the phone call and the meetings related to it afterwards. Because of Taylor's closed door testimony, Sondland all of the sudden had to "revise" his testimony that he (Sondland) didn't know anything about the call or meetings to avoid perjury charges since Taylor's testimony helped "refresh" his memory.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Facebook deleting name of potential whistleblower See in context

Yep and the whistleblower wasn’t on the call. 

Actually, yes, he was, but don't let actual facts get into the way of your alternative narrative.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Facebook deleting name of potential whistleblower See in context

Everyone in DC knows who the “whistleblower” is. Everyone on Twitter knows who he is. Everyone in every news room in America know who he is.

Then please, enlighten all of us with the name if you think that is somehow important or relevant.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Posted in: Lawyer: Whistleblower willing to take written GOP questions See in context

You can’t show it’s untrue,

Uh, yes we can. It's called the absence of actual evidence. You tried to once again provide speculation as actual proof. However, the burden of proof is on you because you've made the accusation. In the U.S. legal system, a person is innocent of any accusation until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

did you not see the threatening letter to the media from the whistleblower lawyers?

No, not in any credible media source.

fine subpoena Eric C and ask him under oath if he is or not. Man if people thought I was and I wasn’t- I would be begging to testify to clear myself.

No need to. Go back and look at what is in the Whistleblower Protection Act and then get back to me.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Posted in: Lawyer: Whistleblower willing to take written GOP questions See in context

But “more” than likely we do.

"More than likely" is not the same as "We know . . ." now is it?

It was not “Debunked” that Eric C is the whistleblower. 

Yes, it was. But feel free to show actual, irrefutable evidence that he is. No speculation.

Just the liberal media is afraid to say it because his lawyers threatened them.

Fiction.

Yes, we know all that, but as I’ve said before, if the President is judged by flimsy evidence based on a political Obama holdover act who’s boss was that communist Brennan,

The only "flimsy" thing here is your lame character assasination attempt because you don't have any actual facts to support your assertions.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Lawyer: Whistleblower willing to take written GOP questions See in context

Most likely estimates is it’s Eric Ciaramella 

Ah, so by your own admission, we don't really know who the Whistleblower really is! In other words, this is just another one of your baseless accusations. Please, get back to us when the real Whistleblower is revealed.

And the President can do the same by not cooperating and what will the Dems do then?

The President doesn't have to cooperate during the investigation if he doesn't want to; however, he does have to follow the Constitution when it comes to not obstructing Congress' oversight and investigation role, or they can add "Obstruction of Congress" as yet another article of impeachment. Review what happened to Nixon if you have any doubts.

 Aren’t him?

Yep, he "aren't."

My wish is, he doesn’t give an inch until he gets to face his accuser ans knows his identity

Only in a court of law. Again, the Whistleblower is protected by the Whistleblower Act. Since you seem to have forgotten, the U.S. whistleblower laws exist to protect the identity and careers of people who bring forward accusations of wrongdoing by government officials. They are not required to testify in an open setting, but if you think so, then please show me where in the law it says this. Therefore, go review it first before coming back here and making demands that aren't part of the process.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Lawyer: Whistleblower willing to take written GOP questions See in context

The big difference is, now that we know who this person is and his history and what his true motivations are . . .

Really? Who is he? What is his name? What is his history? What are his true motivations and how do you know what they are? Where did you get your information, or is all of this conjecture on your part?

 it’s not the same at all since we now know it’s fully and completely politically driven. 

Only to Trump loyalists.

The fact is, the Whistleblower (whoever he or she is) does not have to appear at the hearings and is protected by the Whistleblower Act. That person can simply tell the Republicans to (and I am using your words from the past) "go pound sand."

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Lawyer: Whistleblower willing to take written GOP questions See in context

If written questions were acceptable for Trump's testimony during the Mueller Investigation, the same goes for the Whistleblower. Right, Republicans?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

Flynn is die to . . .

Correction: I meant "Flynn is due to . . ."

Sorry about that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

Trump releases transcripts you whine that they aren’t the real transcripts! 

Because they aren't. Release the real call from the secret server where the actual call was hidden way in and then let's compare them and see which ones are "real" and which ones aren't. I'm sure you wouldn't have a problem with that.

Hero just like Mike Flynn

No, Flynn is no hero. He has admitted to commmitting criminal acts and has betrayed his country. Flynn is die to be sentenced soon. It's disgusting that you would even put the two men in the same category.

trump should have just made an “opening statement” saying his call was perfect.

He already did this. Unfortunately, there is no way to verify his usual hyperbole. Also, please define what a "perfect" call is.

Might want to check LT Col Jim Hickman. 

I have. All I can find on him comes from right-wing websites. However, since you think he has something important to say, why not recommend that he testify in front of Congress then?

Trying to destroy someone's character like Colonel Vindman instead of refuting what he stated with actual facts shows the true weakness of your position and does not contradict the facts which have been presented to the Congress so far.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

James Brennan lied to Congress . . .

Who is James Brennan?

i can’t understand why of all the available things, liberals picked this one phone call to die over.

The first four words of this statement pretty much sums up your entire argument. As far as "dying over a phone call" goes, this whole mess is much more than that.

Good luck and enjoy.

Oh, we will.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

We have the transcripts, This just gets funnier and nuttier by the minute. Lol

No, we don't have the transcripts. We have the White House's version of a summary of the content. It's kind of like William Barr's misleading and inaccurate version of the Mueller Report.

we don’t need a questionable uniformed officer to tell us what he heard when 12 people were on the phone including Pompeo.

That "questionable uniformed officer" is a Harvard-educated, decorated veteran who is the Director for European Affairs for the United States National Security Council (NSC).  He also is fluent in Russian and Ukranian. I'll take his word over Pompeo's any day of the week.

As far as Pompeo goes, he is also part of this conspiracy and will be facing his own inquiries soon. He has no credibility in this whatsoever.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

Also how did the media get his supposedly “secret behind closed doors” opening statement? Liberals are very non curious when it suits you.

Because the committees decided to release his Opening Statement in response to all of the Republican crying about the secrecy of the closed door sessions. There is nothing "non curious" about this.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

. . . the opening statement identifies no crime that was committed. Did he indicate one during testimony?

This is from his Opening Statement:

"Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. Dr. Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.

Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC's lead counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to the NSC's lead counsel."

This shows that Sondland lied (committed perjury) by denying that any of this ever took place. Lying to a congressional committee is a crime.

Pressuring a foreign government to interefere with a U.S. election is also a crime.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

That’s not testimony. And you know this.

Yes, it is. The Opening Statement was printed word for word by NPR in the link that I provided. Those are the words that he stated in his testimony in front of the committees.

"Opening Statement of Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

Before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight and Reform

October 29, 2019"

It's up to you to read the rest of his statement. I cannot cut and paste all of it here just for you.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

I don’t know what he stated (and neither do you)

Actually, yes I do. It's in his very long Opening Statement that I provided a link to. It's all there--word for word, so you can remain in the dark if you choose or you can take the time to read it and then react to its content.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

transcript would be quite helpful.

Since you didn't bother reading his Opening Statement, why should I think that you would even read the actual 10 hours of the transcript once the whole thing becomes available?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

strange how the guy who wears a suit to work everyday showed up in full military uniform to testify.

Since you cannot argue against anything that he stated, you decide to attack his appearance and attempt to degrade his character. Shameful.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

Here's Vindman's Opening Statement:

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/28/774256868/read-ukraine-expert-lt-col-alexander-vindmans-opening-statement

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

Oh did it?

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/28/vindman-testimony-trump-national-security-000305

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Schiff says impeachment transcripts could come next week See in context

So 9 more people this week telling us how they “feel” about the transcript they read of a call they weren’t on.

Colonel Vindman's testimony corroborated everything that those people (Ambassador Taylor, Dr. Hill, Ambassador Yovanovitch, etc.) have claimed, and he was on the call. His testimony also contradicts what Trump toady Morrison stated, so why not get the actual call from the secret server and find out who is really telling the truth here?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Posted in: Trump says he will make Florida his permanent residence See in context

My family and I will be making Palm Beach, Florida, our Permanent Residence," Trump said on Twitter.

That's not going to stop the prosecutors from SDNY from pursuing him and eventually throwing him in jail for the same crimes that his former personal attorney is now serving.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Posted in: N Korea fires 2 missiles in the sea amid stalled talks See in context

No, the Dems have 2024 to look forward to though. Now they don’t have anyone. Sanders can’t beat Trump, Biden is getting more heat for his gaffes as well as his son and his quick pro quo, both Warren and Sanders poll horribly with Minorities and let’s not forget her pretending to a Native American.

Welcome to Fantasy Island--Cult 45 Edition

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Posted in: N Korea fires 2 missiles in the sea amid stalled talks See in context

Correction: My last sentence should have read: "Again, how about if you get serious. Some recent polls showed that if the election were held today, the top four Democratic candidates would beat Trump by double-digits."

Oh, and if you want some of those polls, here they are:

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2019/08/28/poll-shows-five-top-democrats-beating-trump/40038675/

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-democrats-poll-economy-2020-1456536

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-2020-polls-democrats-joe-biden-kamala-harris-buttigieg-beto-o-rourke-elizabeth-warren-a8897391.html

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: N Korea fires 2 missiles in the sea amid stalled talks See in context

But Obama won the Nobel peace Prize. Must be he has special peace making powers.

You cannot make peace with those who don't want it. President Barack Obama was open to talks, but he never became convinced that North Korea would meet his preconditions for talks or that the regime seriously intended to ever give up its nuclear weapons. According to an article written in Time Magazine in March of 2018, they quoted Obama as saying this:

“This is the same kind of pattern that we saw his father engage in and his grandfather before that,” Obama said of Kim Jong Un in 2013, who took over the country from his father in 2011 and had been making threats against the U.S. and South Korea. “Since I came into office, the one thing I was clear about was, we’re not going to reward this kind of provocative behavior. You don’t get to bang your spoon on the table and somehow you get your way.” As he was leaving office, Obama reportedly warned Trump that North Korea would be his most urgent foreign policy threat.

Senate going to remove him assuming the House actually has the impeachment votes? Get serious.

How about if you get serious? Remember 1974? Lots of Nixon supporters said the same thing before Nixon lost his case in the Supreme Court about handing over his tapes and other incriminating evidence against him that the Congress had asked for. Instead of spending time copying right-wing media rhetoric, how about reviewing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), and then come back and tell me all about guaranteed Republican support in the Senate.

So who's gonna beat him? Warren? Buttigieg? Clinton? Get serious.

Again, how about if you get serious. Some recent polls showed that if the election were held today, the top four Democratic candidates would be Trump by double-digits.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Posted in: N Korea fires 2 missiles in the sea amid stalled talks See in context

Didn't Barack Obama have eight years to take care of this? Yeah, he did. But he didn't get squat done.

All presidents dating back to Eisenhower haven't been able to take care of this, but you chose to just single out Obama. Nice balanced view you have there.

  . . . he has over 5 years left as president.

No, he does not. He has a little over a year left--and he might not even make that.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Posted in: Impeachment testimony shows high-powered U.S. lobbyist's role in Ukraine scandal See in context

Not me, I’m not in Washington, but if the Dems want to screw the constitution, the GOP won’t be their fall guy.

What kind of an irrelevant response is that? This isn't about you or where you are at. Following the Constitution is not screwing with it. Following a Federal Judge's ruling is not screwing with it, so where are you getting this from?

It’s an even bigger hoax than the Russian hoax.

You mean the same "Russian Hoax" that ended up with a number of Trump officials pleading guilty to federal charges as well as several of them who are either in prison or are expecting to be sentenced there soon? You need to look up the meanings of words.

ROFL, you serious?

Are you? Prove that there are no Republicans in the committee meetings, and then you might have something to laugh about.

Actually, they do not, they can’t even call on witnesses or cross examine them.

Actually, the ones in the committees do. It's the ones outside of the committees who don't because they are not on the committees. See how this works?

We have a conservative majority now and so far it’s helped Trump as well as now we have over 140 conservatives judges in the lower courts (Democrats beware in the future)

Nixon had a conservative majority on the SC, and the ruled unanimously not in his favor. 140 conservative judges and lower courts have no say in the impeachment procedures, so nice try.

(Democrats beware in the future)

More like Republicans beware right now.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Posted in: Impeachment testimony shows high-powered U.S. lobbyist's role in Ukraine scandal See in context

Ok, if liberals want us to believe that...

Yes, because that is what is in the Constitution, Bass. What part of Judge Howell's ruling did you not understand?

And the Democrats conducting this impeachment hoax in large part of their hearings in secrecy.

Again, no hoax. They are investigating a number of potential illegal acts that were brought to their attention by Trump-appointed and Republican-approved Inspector Generals.

Yes, they should obstruct. As long as they don’t have equal rights or access to the exact same evidence the Democrats have,

What part of Lincoln's post above about 47 Republicans being on the various committees did you not understand? They have the same access that Democrats do, so stop complaining.

. . . let it go to the SC and let them deal with the full legality and rights of both sides.

Yes, let it go to the SC just like in 1974. How did that work out for Republicans again?

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Posted in: Impeachment testimony shows high-powered U.S. lobbyist's role in Ukraine scandal See in context

For all you Trump loyalists out there who still think that the impeachment process so far is not legal, here is what Federal Judge Beryl Howell just ruled on October 25:

Judge Beryl Howell called the Republican illegality arguments “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.

So please, stop repeating the falsehood that there is anything illegal being done by the Democrats here. The only illegal things that are going on are being done by Trump and his minions--refusing to cooperate with Congressional committees, hiding evidence and obstructing Congression investigations by putting out groundless letters of refusal to cooperate.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Posted in: Impeachment testimony shows high-powered U.S. lobbyist's role in Ukraine scandal See in context

Err,,, no. The ones involved in this partisan secretive cangaroo court have been pointing out that it is thoroughly illegal . . .

Blatantly false. A federal judge ruled the other day that there was nothing illegal about the current impeachment proceedings.

Another fake news propaganda article . . .

Only by those looking in the mirror of Trumpworld.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.