AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
This is Petty Ath talking again, but I find this so... cathartic. I don't care if the applause was staged by a couple plants standing up and doing it on purpose, and everyone else joined in. The fact was that the majority of that room was applauding the Ambassador for all the good she did, and I hope she gets to return to what she does best once calmer heads prevail (which may be never).
But more importantly, it feels like things are finally coming out and action is happening. It's not just a word on paper. It's not just allegations and discussions on twitter or the PA forums. It is real, concrete hearings, broadcast to the world, to let people make up their own minds. Many may plug their ears and cover their eyes... but in my heart I feel they are the minority, and we are finally going to see us move towards being a better nation again.
If attitude and demeanor are any kind of barometer, it's clearly obvious that the GOP is on the ropes with this. They have nothing. Their heavy hitters are whiffing at every turn. I am seriously struggling to think of a single valid point that has been made by them in these hearings. Certainly no good points.
I think the thing that Dems are most uncomfortable with and having a hard time explaining succinctly is that that State Department was (rightly) uncomfortable with Hunter Biden taking that Burisma job, and if they can get anything that even if just on appearance seems damning, then it's off to the races. The nuance of why it was still wrong for Trump to target him in faux investigations despite him doing something wrong is too hard to parse out in a pithy soundbite, and successfully muddied waters is as good as a win.
If attitude and demeanor are any kind of barometer, it's clearly obvious that the GOP is on the ropes with this. They have nothing. Their heavy hitters are whiffing at every turn. I am seriously struggling to think of a single valid point that has been made by them in these hearings. Certainly no good points.
I think the thing that Dems are most uncomfortable with and having a hard time explaining succinctly is that that State Department was (rightly) uncomfortable with Hunter Biden taking that Burisma job, and if they can get anything that even if just on appearance seems damning, then it's off to the races. The nuance of why it was still wrong for Trump to target him in faux investigations despite him doing something wrong is too hard to parse out in a pithy soundbite, and successfully muddied waters is as good as a win.
The correct response is that removing the prosecutor increased the likelihood that Burisma would be investigated. Or that he was in part removed for failing to investigate Burisma.
+11
Options
AthenorBattle Hardened OptimistThe Skies of HiigaraRegistered Userregular
If attitude and demeanor are any kind of barometer, it's clearly obvious that the GOP is on the ropes with this. They have nothing. Their heavy hitters are whiffing at every turn. I am seriously struggling to think of a single valid point that has been made by them in these hearings. Certainly no good points.
I think the thing that Dems are most uncomfortable with and having a hard time explaining succinctly is that that State Department was (rightly) uncomfortable with Hunter Biden taking that Burisma job, and if they can get anything that even if just on appearance seems damning, then it's off to the races. The nuance of why it was still wrong for Trump to target him in faux investigations despite him doing something wrong is too hard to parse out in a pithy soundbite, and successfully muddied waters is as good as a win.
It would be very easy to release her talking point materials for the hearings and show that Burisma was one question in a literal sea of hundreds/thousands.
One line: "If Burisma or Hunter Biden is mentioned, direct the questioner to VP Biden."
They made it seem much larger than it was, especially because she couldn't remember any of the other questions in that book. She probably only remembered the practice on Burisma because of prepping for her depositions.
Wow that ovation was like strangely moving. I know DC is full of liberals but something about her getting spontaneous - loud (there was cheers!) ovation really made me feel like something is happening here.
I would be shocked if it wasn't planned somehow. Once a few people get up to applaud, a lot of others would likely follow suit.
... isn't that the definition of spontaneous?
No.
Spontaneity requires no external stimulus, which, without the initial few starting it (planned, is my assumption), I wonder if the latter would have done it on their own.
Don't get me wrong, I fully believe she deserved it, I'm just not placing as much heart into it as mxmarks did.
Spontaneous applause is literally when some people get up and applaud on their own and then everyone joins them. That's how it works.
if i applaud spontaneously and then someone else tells Yovanovitch i applauded spontaneously does that mean the person who told her applauded spontaneously
I've seen a few things on Twitter with conservatives trying to play up a question about whether the ambassador had knowledge of Trump accepting bribes (something like that) and she said no, so therefore the impeachment inquiry must be ended right now. It's obviously a completely irrelevant point, but it seems to be their "best" defense so far.
+1
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The rough transcript of the call does not match the White House readout of the call from April 21. A White House readout is the administration’s post-call description of the conversation. The White House readout said the call underscored “the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The readout also said Trump spoke with Zelensky about “reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity and root out corruption.”
None of those topics are mentioned in the rough transcript released Friday.
The White House seemed to tacitly blame Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who has delivered damaging testimony against the president, for the discrepancy in the official readout offered in April and the memorandum of the phone call.
“It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders. This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said Friday.
White House readouts are usually not even “5 to 10 percent of what a call is really about,” according to a former administration official involved in preparing them who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.
The individual said sometimes the readouts were written before the call. Often, Trump would not say what officials wanted him to raise on the call but sometimes those matters would still be put in the readout, according to the individual.
What. That is absurd, right?
+53
Options
ChanusHarbinger of the Spicy Rooster ApocalypseThe Flames of a Thousand Collapsed StarsRegistered Userregular
I would like someone to request clarification on whether Gidley is actually referring to Vindman, or to Nunes's former aid who convinced Trump that he was the Ukraine expert.
The rough transcript of the call does not match the White House readout of the call from April 21. A White House readout is the administration’s post-call description of the conversation. The White House readout said the call underscored “the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The readout also said Trump spoke with Zelensky about “reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity and root out corruption.”
None of those topics are mentioned in the rough transcript released Friday.
The White House seemed to tacitly blame Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who has delivered damaging testimony against the president, for the discrepancy in the official readout offered in April and the memorandum of the phone call.
“It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders. This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said Friday.
White House readouts are usually not even “5 to 10 percent of what a call is really about,” according to a former administration official involved in preparing them who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.
The individual said sometimes the readouts were written before the call. Often, Trump would not say what officials wanted him to raise on the call but sometimes those matters would still be put in the readout, according to the individual.
What. That is absurd, right?
It is kinda funny they tried to release this letter to make Trump look better but in fact make them look even more suspicious and or incompetent. Its like they are not even reading what it is they are producing.
+23
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
The rough transcript of the call does not match the White House readout of the call from April 21. A White House readout is the administration’s post-call description of the conversation. The White House readout said the call underscored “the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The readout also said Trump spoke with Zelensky about “reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity and root out corruption.”
None of those topics are mentioned in the rough transcript released Friday.
The White House seemed to tacitly blame Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who has delivered damaging testimony against the president, for the discrepancy in the official readout offered in April and the memorandum of the phone call.
“It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders. This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said Friday.
White House readouts are usually not even “5 to 10 percent of what a call is really about,” according to a former administration official involved in preparing them who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.
The individual said sometimes the readouts were written before the call. Often, Trump would not say what officials wanted him to raise on the call but sometimes those matters would still be put in the readout, according to the individual.
What. That is absurd, right?
As with the rest of this madness, there's lots of legitimate reasons why you would not accurately represent the nature of a phone call between POTUS and a foreign head of state.
Imagine calling China or Russia to discuss restarting a nuclear arms restriction treaty. Absolutely no way are you going to just put that in the readout.
In this case it appears to have been done because he just can't stay on script and hadn't decided what he wanted from them yet.
The rough transcript of the call does not match the White House readout of the call from April 21. A White House readout is the administration’s post-call description of the conversation. The White House readout said the call underscored “the unwavering support of the United States for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” The readout also said Trump spoke with Zelensky about “reforms that strengthen democracy, increase prosperity and root out corruption.”
None of those topics are mentioned in the rough transcript released Friday.
The White House seemed to tacitly blame Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who has delivered damaging testimony against the president, for the discrepancy in the official readout offered in April and the memorandum of the phone call.
“It is standard operating procedure for the National Security Council to provide readouts of the president’s phone calls with foreign leaders. This one was prepared by the NSC’s Ukraine expert,” spokesman Hogan Gidley said Friday.
White House readouts are usually not even “5 to 10 percent of what a call is really about,” according to a former administration official involved in preparing them who spoke on the condition of anonymity to speak frankly.
The individual said sometimes the readouts were written before the call. Often, Trump would not say what officials wanted him to raise on the call but sometimes those matters would still be put in the readout, according to the individual.
What. That is absurd, right?
As with the rest of this madness, there's lots of legitimate reasons why you would not accurately represent the nature of a phone call between POTUS and a foreign head of state.
Imagine calling China or Russia to discuss restarting a nuclear arms restriction treaty. Absolutely no way are you going to just put that in the readout.
In this case it appears to have been done because he just can't stay on script and hadn't decided what he wanted from them yet.
I can understand omissions, but not additions. Because yeah, some things should be classified and actual redactions stand out. However, saying you discussed something that didn't come up? That's harder to swallow.
New: David Holmes confirmed he overheard a July 26 phone call b/t Trump & Sondland in which Trump asked if Ukraine would investigate Biden. Sondland said yes.
—>> Holmes was able to hear because Sondland held the phone away from his ear due to how loud Trump was talking. - CNN
At least two other witnesses - beyond David Holmes - overheard the Trump-Sondland call in which Trump was pressing for investigations into the Bidens, we are told
It is going to be hard for all of this to somehow get sillier and more depressing.
It supports the argument that Trump did not care about corruption if he was supposed to bring up corruption and didn't.
A compelling(ish) argument about this I've seen is that Democrats should push on this a little bit, but it's entirely within the realm of reason that discussing of state stuff, which could include the overtly missing parts, could be in a redacted portion that the WH is hoping to use as a gotcha. That would demonstrate a level of cunning and foresight that the WH has not so far demonstrated, and it's equally if not more possible that the redacted parts have him explicitly mentioning Biden and/or an explicit quid pro quo, but it is a possibility.
It still begs the question "So what?" What is this supposed to show? That not 100% of his calls contain illegalities? What a bar to clear.
New: David Holmes confirmed he overheard a July 26 phone call b/t Trump & Sondland in which Trump asked if Ukraine would investigate Biden. Sondland said yes.
—>> Holmes was able to hear because Sondland held the phone away from his ear due to how loud Trump was talking. - CNN
At least two other witnesses - beyond David Holmes - overheard the Trump-Sondland call in which Trump was pressing for investigations into the Bidens, we are told
It is going to be hard for all of this to somehow get sillier and more depressing.
Tune to CNN, where @mkraju is reading from opening statement of Bill Taylor’s aide David Holmes who overheard the Sondland-Trump phone call.
According to David Holmes’s opening statement obtained by @mkraju and @jeremyherb, Holmes could hear Sondland tell Trump on the phone that President Zelensky “loves your ass.”
Trump responded “So, he’s gonna do the investigation?”
“Sondland; “He’s gonna do it."
Sondland also said, "he'll do whatever you want him to."
Yup, it is getting stupider and sillier.
Here is a video of a reading of a key passage of the opening statement:
Holmes also confirmed Taylor's testimony about the President’s thoughts on Ukraine, saying he asked Sondland “if it was true that the President did not ‘give a s—t about Ukraine.'”
Holmes said Sondland responded Trump only cares about “big stuff.” When Holmes said that the Ukraine war was big, Sondland responded "'big stuff' that benefits the President, like the Biden investigation that Mr. Giuliani was pushing,” Holmes said.
Compared to all the shit this administration has pulled and attempted to pull, the fact that they do it while talking to each other like 20-year-old frat boys high-fiving each other for getting C-minuses should not bother me.
It supports the argument that Trump did not care about corruption if he was supposed to bring up corruption and didn't.
A compelling(ish) argument about this I've seen is that Democrats should push on this a little bit, but it's entirely within the realm of reason that discussing of state stuff, which could include the overtly missing parts, could be in a redacted portion that the WH is hoping to use as a gotcha. That would demonstrate a level of cunning and foresight that the WH has not so far demonstrated, and it's equally if not more possible that the redacted parts have him explicitly mentioning Biden and/or an explicit quid pro quo, but it is a possibility.
It still begs the question "So what?" What is this supposed to show? That not 100% of his calls contain illegalities? What a bar to clear.
As long as Republicans are going to repeatedly claim that the things that the White House are releasing are transcripts anyway, I wonder at what point Democrats should switch from "those aren't real transcripts, they omitted things" to "they doctored the transcripts to omit things".
Jim Acosta of CNN: A source familiar with WH discussions said aides to the president are not happy that Sondland apparently shared his call with Trump with others: “the president speaks loudly. Sondland should know that.”
A source familiar with WH discussions said aides to the president are not happy that Sondland apparently shared his call with Trump with others: “the president speaks loudly. Sondland should know that."
That is what they have a problem with and not just talking about blackmail in public in the first place?
“Mr. Sondland really should have known the President was going to shout his crimes to the world. We’re deeply frustrated that he chose to have people within 10 feet of him while discussing crimes with President Trump”.
Jim Acosta of CNN: A source familiar with WH discussions said aides to the president are not happy that Sondland apparently shared his call with Trump with others: “the president speaks loudly. Sondland should know that.”
This is fucking hilarious. 'Sondland should know the President's a fucking moron and plan accordingly.'
Watergate speedrun folks. Watergate speedrun.
+50
Options
MonwynApathy's a tragedy, and boredom is a crime.A little bit of everything, all of the time.Registered Userregular
Some clown called into C-Span's Democratic line regarding Marie Yovanovitch's career choice, insinuating she should be a financial advisor instead of an ambassador because she turned a 200,000 salary over 33 years into a net worth of over 6 million. Then said something about deep state operatives.
But... $200,000 x 33 = $6,600,000. Basic math is too much, I guess?
I mean, that dude is dumb, but most people don't save every dollar they earn on account of the need to, you know, live
Although I'm sure an ambassador is basically provided free housing by the government, which would help a lot
New: David Holmes confirmed he overheard a July 26 phone call b/t Trump & Sondland in which Trump asked if Ukraine would investigate Biden. Sondland said yes.
—>> Holmes was able to hear because Sondland held the phone away from his ear due to how loud Trump was talking. - CNN
So is this like first-and-a-half hand information?
Compared to all the shit this administration has pulled and attempted to pull, the fact that they do it while talking to each other like 20-year-old frat boys high-fiving each other for getting C-minuses should not bother me.
And yet.
Isn't that part of what got Ricardo Rosselló (former Govenor of Puerto Rico) in trouble?
Fox News Senior Capitol Hill producer: "Now, when we look at the U.S. Constitution and look at Article 2, Section 4, it doesn't say anything about witness intimidation."
Fun fact, the USDJ does have laws on the books prohibiting tampering with a witness. It doesn't have to be in the constitution to be a law.
There's nothing in the constitution about turning into a kaiju and destroying the Statue of Liberty either.
They aren't saying that witness tampering isn't illegal, just that it's not an impeachable offense, as its not specifically referenced in the impeachment clause.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't have to mean an actual crime in the impeachment clause. The president can be impeached because he picked his nose on camera.
That said, witness tampering is an actual crime, so.
I mean, its really fucking dumb, but their argument is likely "not 'impeachable', and President can't break laws".
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that:
On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities.
The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:
making false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States;
approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counselling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings;
interfering or endeavouring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force, and Congressional Committees;
approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payment of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities;
endeavouring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States;
disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employees of the United States, for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability;
making or causing to be made false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or
endeavouring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favoured treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
See, Nixon didn't do it live, during the proceedings. That's where he erred.
We've done all this before, but I don't expect Republicans to know how to Google something, I guess.
See, Nixon didn't do it live during the proceedings. That's where he erred.
New: David Holmes confirmed he overheard a July 26 phone call b/t Trump & Sondland in which Trump asked if Ukraine would investigate Biden. Sondland said yes.
—>> Holmes was able to hear because Sondland held the phone away from his ear due to how loud Trump was talking. - CNN
So is this like first-and-a-half hand information?
Still not first hand. Game over, Schiff.
**thinks**
What's the most stupid fucking defense I can think of.
"How can you be sure Sondland was talking to the President?"
"Because he kept referring to the President, and I could hear the President's voice."
"How can you be sure Sondland wasn't speaking to someone pretending to be the President. There are many people who can impersonate his voice? Can you be 100% certain? No? Case. Closed!"
Some clown called into C-Span's Democratic line regarding Marie Yovanovitch's career choice, insinuating she should be a financial advisor instead of an ambassador because she turned a 200,000 salary over 33 years into a net worth of over 6 million. Then said something about deep state operatives.
But... $200,000 x 33 = $6,600,000. Basic math is too much, I guess?
I mean, that dude is dumb, but most people don't save every dollar they earn on account of the need to, you know, live
Although I'm sure an ambassador is basically provided free housing by the government, which would help a lot
no need to save every penny. Compound interest is a thing, especially over 33 years.
Some clown called into C-Span's Democratic line regarding Marie Yovanovitch's career choice, insinuating she should be a financial advisor instead of an ambassador because she turned a 200,000 salary over 33 years into a net worth of over 6 million. Then said something about deep state operatives.
But... $200,000 x 33 = $6,600,000. Basic math is too much, I guess?
I mean, that dude is dumb, but most people don't save every dollar they earn on account of the need to, you know, live
Although I'm sure an ambassador is basically provided free housing by the government, which would help a lot
no need to save every penny. Compound interest is a thing, especially over 33 years.
We just got word of multiple corroborating first hand accounts of the president loudly admitting to crimes in public and you are talking about the ROI on the ex-ambassador's investments.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Posts
But more importantly, it feels like things are finally coming out and action is happening. It's not just a word on paper. It's not just allegations and discussions on twitter or the PA forums. It is real, concrete hearings, broadcast to the world, to let people make up their own minds. Many may plug their ears and cover their eyes... but in my heart I feel they are the minority, and we are finally going to see us move towards being a better nation again.
I feel hope again.
I think the thing that Dems are most uncomfortable with and having a hard time explaining succinctly is that that State Department was (rightly) uncomfortable with Hunter Biden taking that Burisma job, and if they can get anything that even if just on appearance seems damning, then it's off to the races. The nuance of why it was still wrong for Trump to target him in faux investigations despite him doing something wrong is too hard to parse out in a pithy soundbite, and successfully muddied waters is as good as a win.
She got a standing ovation. The end.
The correct response is that removing the prosecutor increased the likelihood that Burisma would be investigated. Or that he was in part removed for failing to investigate Burisma.
It would be very easy to release her talking point materials for the hearings and show that Burisma was one question in a literal sea of hundreds/thousands.
One line: "If Burisma or Hunter Biden is mentioned, direct the questioner to VP Biden."
They made it seem much larger than it was, especially because she couldn't remember any of the other questions in that book. She probably only remembered the practice on Burisma because of prepping for her depositions.
if i applaud spontaneously and then someone else tells Yovanovitch i applauded spontaneously does that mean the person who told her applauded spontaneously
The second amendment. They used to use bear arms to keep track of how well a play was doing.
It's why Polar bears are endangered.
proceed, governor mr. president
which is not as bad as crimes, i suppose
still irrelevant though
I would like someone to request clarification on whether Gidley is actually referring to Vindman, or to Nunes's former aid who convinced Trump that he was the Ukraine expert.
And the need for more documentation
Like, if your book report is just made up then we need to see the novel too.
It is kinda funny they tried to release this letter to make Trump look better but in fact make them look even more suspicious and or incompetent. Its like they are not even reading what it is they are producing.
As with the rest of this madness, there's lots of legitimate reasons why you would not accurately represent the nature of a phone call between POTUS and a foreign head of state.
Imagine calling China or Russia to discuss restarting a nuclear arms restriction treaty. Absolutely no way are you going to just put that in the readout.
In this case it appears to have been done because he just can't stay on script and hadn't decided what he wanted from them yet.
I can understand omissions, but not additions. Because yeah, some things should be classified and actual redactions stand out. However, saying you discussed something that didn't come up? That's harder to swallow.
Another CNN correspondent:
It is going to be hard for all of this to somehow get sillier and more depressing.
A compelling(ish) argument about this I've seen is that Democrats should push on this a little bit, but it's entirely within the realm of reason that discussing of state stuff, which could include the overtly missing parts, could be in a redacted portion that the WH is hoping to use as a gotcha. That would demonstrate a level of cunning and foresight that the WH has not so far demonstrated, and it's equally if not more possible that the redacted parts have him explicitly mentioning Biden and/or an explicit quid pro quo, but it is a possibility.
It still begs the question "So what?" What is this supposed to show? That not 100% of his calls contain illegalities? What a bar to clear.
But they'll manage. Somehow.
They always do.
Sondland also said, "he'll do whatever you want him to."
Yup, it is getting stupider and sillier.
Here is a video of a reading of a key passage of the opening statement:
Edit 2:
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/impeachment-hearing-11-15-19/index.html God, they are so silly.
And yet.
As long as Republicans are going to repeatedly claim that the things that the White House are releasing are transcripts anyway, I wonder at what point Democrats should switch from "those aren't real transcripts, they omitted things" to "they doctored the transcripts to omit things".
https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/david-holmes-testimony/index.html
This is fucking hilarious. 'Sondland should know the President's a fucking moron and plan accordingly.'
Watergate speedrun folks. Watergate speedrun.
I mean, that dude is dumb, but most people don't save every dollar they earn on account of the need to, you know, live
Although I'm sure an ambassador is basically provided free housing by the government, which would help a lot
So is this like first-and-a-half hand information?
Still not first hand. Game over, Schiff.
Isn't that part of what got Ricardo Rosselló (former Govenor of Puerto Rico) in trouble?
See, Nixon didn't do it live during the proceedings. That's where he erred.
**thinks**
What's the most stupid fucking defense I can think of.
"How can you be sure Sondland was talking to the President?"
"Because he kept referring to the President, and I could hear the President's voice."
"How can you be sure Sondland wasn't speaking to someone pretending to be the President. There are many people who can impersonate his voice? Can you be 100% certain? No? Case. Closed!"
no need to save every penny. Compound interest is a thing, especially over 33 years.
(CNN reporter with a CNN screenshot of quite the Trump quote)
We just got word of multiple corroborating first hand accounts of the president loudly admitting to crimes in public and you are talking about the ROI on the ex-ambassador's investments.
Clap those orange cheeks.