- Joined Jul 20, 2009
Oh, they snitchin snitchin now.
They probably playing this at Coal Gang HQ right now...
They probably playing this at Coal Gang HQ right now...
Not completely sure of your background, but you ever consider getting into journalism?WaPo obtained Taylor's full opening statement:
I would highly recommend reading it all the way through.
Statement confirms that all relevant agencies unanimously agreed at the time that there shouldn't be a hold on the military funds. At one point during the hold, the DoD was asked to come up with an analysis of the effectiveness of the military aid and promptly returned with an affirmitive determination within one day.
Secretaries of State and Defense, CIA director Haspel and NSA Bolton sought a joint meeting with Trump to convince him to lift the hold but scheduling difficulties complicated the effort.
The hold remained until September, after the WH had been informed of the whistleblower complaint.
Statement also confirms the testimony of Fiona Hill, Trump's former Russia adviser. These crooks found a way to make Bolton look like the good guy.
According to the statement, Zelensky's top national security advisers expressed concern to Taylor that Zelensky did not want to be used as a pawn in Trump's re-election campaign.
He was fired by Zelensky at the end of September.
State Dept Counsl Brechbuhl told Taylor that "[Trump] doesn't want to provide any assistance at all."
There is virtually unanimous bipartisan support for aid to Ukraine to deter Russian aggression. WaPo reported yesterday that Putin and Orban helped sour Trump's view on Ukraine and that WH officials were struggling to push back against their respective influence.
The securitiy assistance had also been congressionally approved, thus mandating Trump to provide it.
Taylor prepared to resign after his conversation with Brechbuhl.
Fiona Hill's replacement, Mr. Morrison, can also corroborate Taylor's testimony about the quid pro quo.
It was the call with Mr. Morrison that prompted Bill Tayor to establish a written record in his texts to Sondland.
On September 2, Taylor briefed Zelensky's head of national security on the conversation with Sondland about the military aid. As mentioned earlier, Danyliuk was fired by Zelensky later in September.
Danyliuk initially sought a meeting with Morrison because no US officials could give him a straight answer on why there was a hold on the security aid. According to the statement, Ukrainians learned of the hold on August 29 via a Politico article.
"The official foreign policy of the United States was undercut by the irregular efforts led by Mr. Giuliani."
According to Mr. Morrison, Trump told Sondland that he was not asking for a "quid pro quo" but then proceeded to explicitly insist a quid pro quo, just without using those specific words.
"President Trump did insist that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 election interference."
Mr. Morrison then told John Bolton and National Security Council lawyers about the phonecall between Trump and Sondland.
That anonymous person is a clown of the highest degree. If I recall correctly, the op-ed said that he/she actively subverted the president's directives. Either you follow the orders, provided they're not illegal, or you file some kind of complaint, contact Congress, and/or resign.
Anonymous and their book can kick rocks
Yes, he stayed in the race even when he didn't have a chance to win. But as I've stated in here before, I disagree that that means he was wrong to have done so, particularly since his campaign was an unprecedented opportunity to spread a message that hadn't been articulated by a major presidential candidate in decades.Nah, he was a sore loser. He was a good actor in campaigning for Clinton, but famb stayed in the race way longer than he had a chance. Downplayed how bad he got his *** handed to him by Hillary in delegates. Was delusional about his chances for a comeback. Even Obama had to tell him c'mon, when they met. Hell he suggested super delegates should steal the win for him.
And he said **** like Southern States that Clinton won should have less say in the process. Which was a huge racial dog whistle.
Then in the months following the election he threw the Dems and Clinton under the bus with hot takes about the Dems not connecting with the white working class and saying all Trump voters are not racist.
I mean he did the right thing in the end, but he kinda acted like a sucka too.
I was thinking more longterm but you are absolutely right. One thing people unite on is vitriol for HC.Bet money this gives Gabbard a boost in the polls.
people don’t like HRC. The only people defendingher actions are die hard supporters who think she lost because some Facebook ads.
Hillary Clinton's image has not improved since hitting a personal low of 36% late last year. Clinton's favorable rating is 7 points lower than where it was on the eve of the 2016 election.news.gallup.com
I personally feels she gets a bad rap and nowhere near as ****ty as she is portrayed.
but polls are polls, and trump currently has a higher favorable rating than HRC
Straw man. No one said Bernie must agree with everything the DNC wants. I said if he takes issue with how the DNC operates, he should have stayed in the party to help affect the changes he wants to see.I dont know why I always get baited by the same Bernie haters in here.
Their anti Bernie buffonery though is just so outlandish.
-We live in a two party system so like it or not everyone if they want to win has to run in one of the two parties
- Once you run with a party you dont owe them your soul. They are providing you a platform and adding you to a ticket. You do not have to agree with everything the party wants. Have any of you ever been on a campaign or worked for an elected official? A democrat congressman in Arkansas does not have to vote the same way as a democrat congressman in our People's Republic of California.
-With that said Bernie can vote however he wants. That is why people like him. He votes for what he thinks is right not what DC democrats say.
-Howard Dean? That dude is an establishment Dem. The establishment does not want to change. They want to keep power and not rustle any feathers. I would be pissed too if the super delegates had already committed to Hillary even before votes were cast. I understand the rules allow it but given the popularity of Sanders you would think they would have waited to see how the delegates were voting. Anyway, I would take anything Dean or debbie wasserman shultz say with a grain of salt. They too should ride into the sunset.
-Regardless of party, race, religion or ethnicity it is evident that people are tired of do nothing Democrats and Republicans. Republicans given their lack of education are fine burning the place down but Democrats have hope for change...but it needs to be clearly defined and radical (by centrist dems standards). I am not saying I personally feel that way but am merely trying to explain why there is so much hate for the Clintons and even some for the Bush dynasty in both parties.
-Dont believe me though...believe the young democrats who are in the party and having to fight it to create change and reforms. The party would rather have 30 year term members who are out of touch but vote party line than 20 year olds who ask questions and offer new and bold policies.