Tag Archives: corruption

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman: “How could it possibly be a good idea …”

10 Sunday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

“…I’m representing my witness here and this is my client. And for you to — I mean, the insinuation — if you guys want to go down this road, God be with you. But I’m telling you it’s so apparent that — and it’s so — it’s so cynical for you to go down such a road with such a — with such an individual like this. If that’s the game you guys want to play, go at it. Okay? But we’re going to –“

It’s really a simple question.

Do you believe that is legal or acceptable for the President of the United States to extort interference in a U.S. election from a foreign government by withholding previously appropriated military aid?

The following individuals who appear in the deposition transcript hold law degrees:

Michael Volkov, legal counsel for Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman
Representative John Ratcliffe (R)
Representative Eric Swalwell (D)
Representative Mike Quigley (D)

From page 157 through 163 in the deposition:

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHTNGTON, D.C.

DEPOSITION OF: LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER S. VINDMAN

Tuesday, October 29, 2Ot9
Washington, D.C.

[….]

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Then let me move on to something that you said earlier that I want you to clarify for me, Colonel Vindman. You said that — I wrote down, in talking about the investigations that they — it was your opinion that they were, quote, “not credible,” end quote, that, quote, “there seemed to be a lot of leaks,” end quote. And then you — and, again, I’m not — I wrote this down. I want to give you an opportunity to address it or clarify it. That you had conversations with Ukrainian officials about what to do regarding Mr. Giu1iani, and I wrote down that your response was that you told them to stay out of U.S. domestic issues, stay out of U.S. politics. Does that sound like what you said earlier today, on words to that effect?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: So yeah. I mean, frankly, Congressman, I think you captured like three on four different responses to three on four different questions there. I don’t think those were all, you know, in the same — same, you know, question. But I think that I guess, as individual sections, that sounds accurate, yes.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. So on the issue of advising Ukrainian officials to stay out of U.S. domestic issues, is that one conversation, multiple conversations?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: I could probably — I would say that it became an increasing theme as the Ukrainians became increasingly concerned about the narrative that was emanating from Mr. Giuliani, that I would continue to get the same types of questions about what — you know, what do we do with regard to these calls for an investigation and things of that nature.

My answer would be consistent. I am not a — you know, a political individual. I’m not a political operative. I’m a professional military officer, a — you know — as designated by the National Security Council, a kind of foreign policy expert, though that might be extreme.

I would counsel them that this is outside of my wheelhouse and, frankly, you know, I don’t fu11y understand all the implications; but I would consistently also counsel them that it’s important to stay out of U.S. politics. Because if you recall, Congressman, we have Ukraine’s neighbor, who is actively engaged in war with them, was involved in 2016 election meddling, and that did not work well for the U.S. – Russian bilateral relationship. If anything, that significantly retarded that relationship.

MR. RATCLIFFE: So —

LT. COL. VINDMAN: And in order to — Congressman, I apologize. In order to avoid that kind of pitfall for what I considered to be an important ally to the United States and certainly an ally in the struggle to push back against Russian aggression, I counseled them to stay out of U.S. politics.

MR. RATCLIFFE: So after this July 25th phone call, how many of those conversations did you have and with what Ukrainian officials?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: So after the July 25th phone call, it was an extremely busy week. I know I didn’t speak to any of the Ukrainians that week. I believe in order — just for good housekeeping — I was getting ready to go on vacation. I went on vacation — I was supposed to go on vacation from the 3rd through the 18th of July. That didn’t happen. I got called back early. And I believe, in terms of good housekeeping, there was probably a conversation with the Ukrainians. My recollection is, best recollection is about the 31st of July. It’s the middle of that week right before I went on vacation, you know, we had a conversation.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. Who’s “we”?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: It would be my standard counterpart, which would be the Deputy Chief of Mission for Ukraine.

MR. RATCLIFFE: And who is that?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Oksana Shulyar. It’s in the record, Congressman.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Okay. And were you having that conversation in the course of your responsibilities and duties at the NSC?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Absolutely.

MR. RATCLIFFE: All right. And you had authority to have those conversations?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Absolutely.

MR. RATCLIFFE: So you — a week following you listening in on a phone call with the President of the United States making a request of the Ukrainian Government to assist in ongoing investigations, a member of his National Security Council subsequently told Ukrainian officials to do just the opposite and to ignore his request and stay out of U.S. politics. Is that what we’re to understand from your testimony today?

LT. COL. VINDMAN: That’s an interesting characterization, Congressman. I was certainly not going against the orders of my Commander in Chief. What I was suggesting is that very superficial — on at the basic 1evel, staying out of U.S. domestic politics is not a good idea. Congressman, I apologize, do you think this is —

MR. RATCLIFFE: Let me ask the question.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Congressman, do you think this is a good idea to get involved —

MR. SWALWELL: Let him finish.

MR. RATCLIFFE: He has a lawyer here, President Swalwell.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: How could it possibly be a good idea —

MR. QUIGLEY: [Presiding.] Hold on, gentlemen. Gentlemen, let the witness finish answering this question.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: Congressman, how could it possibly be a good idea to counsel at my 1evel — I’m certainly not the President of the United States. The President of the United States has the authority to do this, I guess, I don’t know. I didn’t think it was right. And that is not a criticism against the President. I just don’t know how — a better way to put it, so I apologize.

But I, as a Director on the National Security Council, would certainly not counsel my counterpart to somehow involve themselves into U.S. domestic politics. You could take that as — I mean, I guess you could twist that into some sort of specific —

MR. RATCLIFFE: I’m not trying to twist anything.

LT. COL. VINDMAN: I guess I misunderstood the question.

MR. VOLKOV: I object to that characterization. It’s pretty obvious what you’re trying to do, sir.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Let me ask the question.

MR. VOLKOV: I’m representing my witness here and this is my client. And for you to — I mean, the insinuation — if you guys want to go down this road, God be with you. But I’m telling you it’s so apparent that — and it’s so — it’s so cynical for you to go down such a road with such a — with such an individual like this. If that’s the game you guys want to play, go at it. Okay? But we’re going to —

MR. RATCLIFFE: Let me ask my question, because what I heard —

MR. VOLKOV: You don’t have a jury here, sir. You don’t have the public here.

MR. RATCLIFFE: I understand that. I’m making a record.

MR. VOLKOV: And eventually you will and you can do it then.

MR. RATCLIFFE: I will.

MR. VOLKOV: Right now we’re going to object.

MR. RATCLIFFE: Well, you can object, but I’m going to ask this question, because the witness just testified —

MR. VOLKOV: Well —

MR. RATCLIFFE: Are you going to let me ask a question, Mr. Volkov?

MR. VOLKOV: Yes, I will. Ask a proper question.

MR. RATCLIFFE: All night. Colonel Vindman, You have spent a lot of today talking about the fact that you reported to national security lead counsel that you thought there was something wrong with respect to the conversation between President Trump and President Zelensky, correct?

MR. VOLKOV: Asked and answered. How many times are we going to go through this? I’m asking the chair, how many times are we going to go through this? Are we going to go through this over and over and over again?

MR. RATCLIFFE: Do You have an answer?

MR. VOLKOV: Wait a minute. He hasn’t had an instruction from the chain yet. Remember when you’re in front of a judge, you wait for the judge.

MR. QUIGLEY: So the question has been asked and answered, the ruling of the chair.

MR. RATCLIFFE: All night.

Colonel Vindman, on July 25th, 2O19, the President of the United States asked for the assistance of the Ukraine in connection with criminal investigation or investigations.

Your testimony a few minutes ago was that during the week of July 31, following that ca11, you advised Ukrainian officials to stay out of U.S. politics. Is that connect? I want an answer.

MR. VOLKOV: We’ve already been down this road.

MR. RATCLIFFE: No, you haven’t.

MR. VOLKOV: I object.

MR. QUIGLEY: Just one second.

MR. CICILLINE: May I raise a point of inquiry or point of order?

MR. QUIGLEY: Hold that for a second. So I believe you asked the question in terms of it being criminal, and I’m not sure that was even anywhere in the President’s comments, that he said, I’m asking you to help in a criminal investigation. The rest of the question has been asked and answered. And the time is up.

MR. CASTOR: You guys got to give him a few more minutes after all the —

MR. QUIGLEY: No, I don’t.

[….]

Mr. Ratcliffe (R) is quite a piece of work, eh?

Addressing another member of Congress (Eric Swalwell) as he did tells us all a lot about his views on comity and decorum.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Previously:

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman (November 9, 2019)

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander S. Vindman

09 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

It’s not a smoking gun, it’s more than that. It’s a smoldering crater.

Excerpts from a deposition:

PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE, joint with the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND REFORM
and the
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
WASHTNGTON, D.C.

DEPOSITION OF: LIEUTENANT COLONEL ALEXANDER S. VINDMAN

Tuesday, October 29, 2Ot9
Washington, D.C.

[….]

0n July 10th, 2019, Oleksandr Danylyuk, the Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council for Ukraine, visited Washington, D.C., for a meeting with National Security Advisor Bolton. Ambassadors Volker and Sondland and Energy Secretary Rick Perry attended.

The meeting proceeded well until the Ukrainians broached the subject of a meeting between the two Presidents. The Ukrainians saw this meeting as critically important in order to solidify the support for their most important international partner. Ambassador Sondland started — when Ambassador Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations in order to secure the meeting with the President, Ambassador Bo1ton cut the meeting short.

Following the meeting — this meeting — there was a scheduled debriefing during which Ambassador Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigation into the 2016 elections, the Bidens, and Burisma. I stated to Ambassador Sondland that the statements — that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate the Bidens and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something that the NSC was going to get involved in on push. Dr. Hill entered the room shortly thereafter and assented to Ambassador Sondland that his statements were inappropriate.

Following the debriefing, I reported my concerns to NSC’s 1ega1 counsel, Lead legal counsel. Dr. Hill also reported the incident to lead legal counsel.

[….]

Q And are you aware of any factual basis for that narrative, based on your training, experience, and knowledge of Ukraine?

A I am unaware of any factual basis for the accusations against Ambassador Yovanovitch, and I am, frankly, unaware of any authoritative basis for Ukrainian interference in 2016 elections, based on my knowledge.

[….]

Q Was this the first time that you had heard about these investigations in connection with a White House meeting?

A This ls the first time that it didn’t come from, you know — this wasn’t a — this had developed mainly — my situational awareness into this developed initially through open source and then, you know, professional communications to determine what was the substance behind some of this. But this was the first time that it emerged kind of with a government official discussing it.

[….]

Q Did Ambassador Sondland — were the Ukrainian officials in the room when he was describing the need for these investigations in order to get the White House meeting?

A So they were in the room initially. I think, once it became clean that there was some sort of discord amongst the government officials in the room, Ambassador Sondland asked them to step out of the room.

Q What was the discord?

A The fact that it was cl-ear that I, as the representative — I, as the representative of the NSC, thought it was inappropriate and that we were not going to get involved in investigations.

Q Did you say that to Ambassador Sondland?

A Yes, I did.

[….]

Q Why did you think it was not appropriate?

A I just — I thought it was inappropriate to have — to call for an investigation — to call a foreign power to investigate a U.S. citizen. In my mind, I had spent quite a bit of time in that part of the world. I understand how the justice system works. It’s not a rule of law that governs. These could all be orchestrated to achieve some sort of objective. And, in my mind, I thought it was, you know — if they thought that this was in their national security interests and they could potentially get away with it — you know, I’m not talking about the Ukrainians; I’m talking about foreign powers in general — and if they thought that it was in their national security interests — and this is a country that’s fighting a wan against Russia — and they could get away with it, I mean, why should they really care that much about domestic politics at a different country? They’re going to do what they need to to protect and advance thein own national security interests. And, you know, this would not be — if they chose to do it, they could potentially tip the scales, and this would not be a fair investigation, and it would provide, you know, compromising on maybe even fabricated information, if need be. So these things, these thoughts were all going through my mind.

[….]

And a Republican member tells a Democratic member to “shut up.”

[….]

THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me. Excuse me. Let me just state this for the record. The whistleblower has a statutory night to anonymity. There are concerns about — and I’m –

MR. MEADOWS: Mr. Chainman, point of order.

MR. SWALWELL: Hey, Mr. Meadows, he’s the chainman. He finishes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meadows, when I’m finished.

MR. MEADOWS: I have a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meadows, you may make your —

MR. SWALWELL: He’s the chainman. He finishes.

MR. MEADOWS: Shut up.

THE CHAIRMAN: Hey, Mr. Meadows, you –

MR. MEADOWS: I have a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.

THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Meadows, you’11 be recognized after I finish what I have to say.

[….]

[….]

MR. JORDAN: Why are you instructing him that way, counsel?

MR. VOLKOV: Because –

MR. JORDAN: I don’t cane what you say Mr. –

THE CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, Mr. Jordan, you’re not recognized.

MR. JORDAN: It’s our time.

THE CHAIRMAN: You are not recognized, and your time has expired.

MR. JORDAN: You told us you were going to give us extra time, what you took from us.

THE CHAIRMAN: And you’ve used it. And you’ve used it.

MR. JORDAN: There’s a question on the table, Mr. Chairman.

THE CHAIRMAN: It is the ruling of the chain that the witness shall not identify employees, detailees, on contractors of the intelligence agency, or provide information that may lead to the revelation of the identity of the whistleblower, someone whose life has been put at risk. The majority canes about this, and we are determined to protect the night of that whistleblower to remain anonymous. And we will not allow bad faith efforts to out this whistleblower.

[….]

There’s a whole lot more.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Dr. Fiona Hill, Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia, National Security Council

08 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

Forget the smoking gun, it’s way beyond that. It’s a smoldering crater.

Dr. Fiona Hill Former Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Europe and Russia, National Security Council

Conducted on October 14, 2019

House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
House Committee on Oversight and Reform
House Committee on Foreign Affairs

[….]
A: And Ambassador Sondland, in front of the Ukrainians, as I came in, was talking about how he had an agreement with Chief of Staff Mulvaney for a meeting with the Ukrainians if they were going to go forward with investigations. And my director for Ukraine was looking completely alarmed. And I came in again as this discussion was underway. … And I said: Look, I don’t know what’s going on here, but Ambassador Bolton wants to make it very clear that we have to talk about, you know, how are we going to set up this meeting. It has to go through proper procedures. And he started to basically talk about discussions that he had had with the chief of staff. He mentioned Mr. Giuliani, but then I cut him off because I didn’t want to get further into this discussion at all. …

Q: So it was you personally who heard Ambassador Sondland mention Burisma—

A: Correct.

Q: —in the Ward Room?

A: Correct. And Wells had been sitting with me in Ambassador Bolton’s office when the initial meeting took place, and he also understood it was a redirect.

Q: And Mr. Vindman was also there—

A: Correct.

Q: —and heard it?

A: And Kurt Volker.[….]

[….]
A: And I went back to talk to Ambassador Bolton. And Ambassador Bolton asked me to go over and report this to our NSC counsel, to John Eisenberg. And he told me, and this is a direct quote from Ambassador Bolton: You go and tell Eisenberg that I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this, and you go and tell him what you’ve heard and what I’ve said. So I went over to talk to John Eisenberg about this. …

Q: And in that initial brief conversation, do you recall what you said and what he said?

A: Yeah. I told him exactly, you know, what had transpired and that Ambassador Sondland had basically indicated that there was agreement with the chief of staff that they would have a White House meeting or, you know, a Presidential meeting if the Ukrainians started up these investigations again. And the main thing that I was personally concerned about, as I said to John, was that he did this in front of the Ukrainians.[….]

[….]
Q: At my peril, I’m trying to figure out whether this is just complete fiction that was pitched to a reporter and has been completely debunked based on information you have or whether there’s any other explanation for this—

A: It is a fiction that the Ukrainian Government was launching an effort to upend our election, upend our election to mess with our Democratic systems….

Q: I’m just asking you about—

A: Because if you’re also trying to peddle an alternative variation of whether the Ukrainians subverted our election, I don’t want to be a part of that, and I will not be part of it.

Q: I’m not trying to peddle anything. I’m trying to ask you about what information you have regarding these. And, you know, frankly, if we didn’t have such a—

A: But you’re asking me about an article that was written in Politico in January of 2017.

Q: And I probably wouldn’t have returned to it, but it was just such a passionate rebuke of this article that just—

A: Well, it’s the thrust of the question that you’re asking here, which is to basically—you know, what we’re dealing with now is a situation where we are at risk of saying that everything that happened in 2016 was a result of Ukraine in some fashion.

Q: Yeah. I’m not saying that. I’m not—

A: Well, that’s certainly what it sounds like to me. I’m just trying to basically say here that I have very—you know, obviously strong feelings about our national security. And I just want to, if I’ve done anything, leave a message to you that we should all be greatly concerned about what the Russians intend to do in 2020. And any information that they can provide, you know, that basically deflects our attention away from what they did and what they’re planning on doing is very useful to them [….]

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R): he thinks we’re all too stupid to remember to breathe

08 Friday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Gaslighting.

Representative Blaine Luetkemeyer (r) [2014 file photo].

Yesterday afternoon:

Blaine Luetkemeyer @RepBlaine
Today I sent a letter to Speaker Pelosi and Chairman Schiff demanding the release of all transcripts from their secret impeachment depositions. Despite promising increased transparency, this investigation continues to happen behind closed doors and completely on Democrats’ terms.
[….]
3:36 PM · Nov 7, 2019

Benghazi!

There was much hilarity in the responses:

Where have you been?

Many of the transcripts have been released already!!!!

Reading is hard…

Republicans on these committees have access to it all. Whether or not they choose to exercise that right is their call. Maybe you should pen a letter to those who chose to not attend the depositions.

Hmm, did no one tell you about all the transcripts they released this week? You know, the ones your GOP colleagues participated in? I know, a bunch of them blew the depositions off so they could have talking points but we both know BS when we see it, right?

[….]I’ve only seen this identical tweet by like 12 other Republicans. Working yet?

Absolutely, let’s get all the information about Trump’s wrongdoing out in public.

We see what you did there.

They weren’t secret, the GOP members of the intelligence committee were allow into the depositions, which were held in accordance to the congressional rules republicans concocted and passed. Next week everything will be televised and you’ll complain about something else.

So you mean just like every investigation under GOP control except those turned up absolutely nothing of consequence while this one just keeps rolling out result after result after result? Also, transcripts ARE being released, but GOP folks say they won’t read ’em… Which is it?

That’s gaslighting for you.

How secret are they, Blaine? Meadows was tweeting earlier about the deposition he was present for.

Instead of tweeting about the fancy letters you’ve been writing, just ask Mark.

The WH must have threatened to primary you. Perhaps you should share the number of Republican House members involved in these “secret” investigations. Plus, this tweet seems a bit outdated. Transcripts being made public & open hearings beginning soon.

Wow you wrote a letter? Amazing stuff! Should we tune in tomorrow to see you mail the letter!?! I can’t wait the suspense is killing me!

Actually, the next step is a harshly worded memo.

Does it take effort to be this craven and disingenuous and is this a skill you’ve honed over time? Or does it come naturally?

Every time y’all demand stuff, they release it, and then y’all say the incriminating evidence doesn’t matter. Go gaslight your wife and leave us alone.

They’ve released transcripts everyday this week and public hearings are starting next week. So what exactly was the point of your letter?

Ready for the public hearings? I am!

They’re being released but you’re too busy grandstanding to notice.

You are a dollar short and a day late. Maybe you don’t have a television or access to the internet, so I’ll tell you, they been releasing them! You guys are tragic with your ineptness and inability to find a way to defend the indefensible! Find a new lie to cover the old ones.

They are being released. You know this, yet tweet nonsense anyway. You are a sorry excuse for an elected official.

Who in their right mind voted for you?
Seems like you don’t stay up to date with developments.
BTW: Are you bothering to read the transcripts as they are released?

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Impeachment: Greenland

07 Thursday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

My God, it’s a perpetual clown show.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

From Ambassador Bill Taylor’s deposition [pdf] before the House Intelligence Committee in the matter of the impeachment investigation of Donald Trump (r):

[….]
THE CHAIRMAN: And you go on jn that paragraph to say: “My understanding was that the Secretaries of Defense and State, the CIA Director, and the National Security Advisor sought a joint meeting with the Presjdent to convince him to release the hold, but such a meeting was hard to schedule.” What do you deduce from that, that our alIy is fighting with the Russians, but all of these agencies that support this can’t get a meeting with the President to discuss it?

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: It turns out, Mr. Chairman, that those principals, as we call them, were on different trips at different times. I think this was also about the time of the Greenland question, about purchasing Greenland, which took up a 1ot of energy in the NSC.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. That’s disturbing for a whole different reason.

AMBASSADOR TAYLOR: Different story. Different story.[….]

“…a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government…”

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Quid pro, so?

06 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
For 6 weeks, @SpeakerPelosi and @RepAdamSchiff have been selectively leaking portions of the transcripts in an effort to build a pre-emptive narrative against @realDonaldTrump.

Following House Rule XI, all materials need to be made available to all Members of Congress.

[….]
9:55 AM · Nov 6, 2019

Benghazi!

Pearl clutching, too.

Again, there was much hilarity in the responses:

And here we have another one not paying attention to the turning tide. Better get on board Hartzler before the Trumptanic goes down. There’s ice in the water. Impeach Trump!

“I gotta get to the airport”

Heh.

Inquiry or not, Trump pressured foreign governments to interfere in U.S. elections on live television, on the White House lawn in broad daylight and made it as clear as possible.

You can’t honestly sit there & tell the ppl YOU work for that you have to “wait on the facts”
Smh

Remember the summary of the Mueller report that was released by Barr that outright lied about what the report said? I do.

There are republicans on the committee. If there was anything favorable to y’all, it would be leaked. You’re hiding behind this talking point.

Cool, cool. Are you going to read them? Cause they all corroborate the same thing: Trump held our taxpayer dollars hostage from a congressionally approved purpose to extort a foreign leader to politcally benefit himself.

Hi @RepHartzler I saw the video of you scurrying off from a reporter asking you if you think it’s ok for a President to seek help find dirt on an opponent. “I got to get to the airport” seems like a poor excuse to answer a yes or no question. Shameful.

Do us a favor when you see it. Read it. Read every word. It’s damning to your president and those who serve him. That includes you.

We are watching to see what you do. Are you going to stand up for our Country and Constitution or are you going to go down with your party?

this is a party ordered tweet. look at the members of the GOP and note their frantic, party line tweets. They do as they’re told. They lie as they’re told.

Are you even reading these releases? Why are you still arguing process? Oh, right…you have nothing to say on substance, because sticking with Trump is a winning stance. Good luck. May history judge you.

Yes, let’s follow rules!

It’s against the rules to withhold federal aid to a foreign country until said country helps you win re-election.

It’s against the rules for people to break into a SCIF, especially with their damn cell phones on and recording.

Well, yes.

Trump’s DOJ/Bill Barr is the only party guilty of “pre-emptive narratives.” His memo dismissing Mueller rept, misleading the country, and furthering a conspiracy theory that “Ukraine did it! Not Russia!” which has led us here, against findings of ALL US INTEL is blatantly corrupt

Republicans have been part of every one of those depositions. And the transcripts will keep coming. You are looking for Mr. Volker’s, I presume?

Been reading it. You know, it’s easily available from the House Intelligence Committee web site.

You’re not interested in reading. You are just prolonging the inevitable.
Abuse of power
Obstruction of Congress
Using the office of the Presidency for personal gain.
Aiding and abetting a foreign power
Bribery
Extortion

Be careful what you wish for.
All will be revealed.

#BlueWave

Oh, now GOP wants to follow rules? How about starting with testifying when subpoenaed?

I know you might be at the airport, but do you think it’s ok for the president to ask a foreign government to interfere in our election? Pretty easy yes or no question

Just focus on getting to the Airport.

Chicken shit!! Answer the question!!

Did you make it to the airport?

Will you actually read them? Your colleagues are already saying they’ll refuse to read any transcripts.

Sounds a bit like a pre-emptive decision to me.

#FakePresident
#FakePatriots
#DailyGOPLies

They weren’t leaks they were opening statements that is different then actual testimony. This shouldn’t have be explained to you.

Until the completely un-redacted notes of the Ukraine call are released, and the completely un-redacted Mueller report are released, you’re just another hypocritical Trumper sycophant.

Well, yes.

She doesn’t hold town halls, that is why folks have to ask questions on Twitter platform, of course she doesn’t respond.

Well, yes.

Vicky Hartzler has become Missouri’s version of Devin Nunes!

Do you think it’s ok for a President of the Unites States to solicit help from a foreign government for political purposes. #ExtortionistTrump

Is it ok for a president to ask a foreign government to interfere in our elections?

You can’t answer a simple f-ing question whether or not its ok to shake down a country for dirt on an opponent. Yes or No?

Congresswoman, do you think it’s okay for the president to pressure foreign governments to I reference in our elections? Asking for a friend, they’re still waiting on your answer.

Not like he isn’t building his own narrative for impreachment.

Why? You guys are saying you’re not going to read it anyway.

Sondland testified Trump and Pence committed crimes of quid pro quo….

Be careful what you say to @SpeakerPelosi, she might be our new president.

the depositions are being released.

you know that.

Why won’t you say whether you think it is okay for a President to extort taxpayer money from an ally unless they interfere in our elections? It is a simple yes or no question. Do you uphold the constitution or not?

And you know why we know that none of the testimonies help Trump, because Republicans haven’t leaked them already.

Face it Vicky, you are part of the most corrupt party in our nations history and all you have left is to complain about the process.
#DoYourJob

And then, like Lindsey Graham, they’ll choose not to read or believe it if it shows Trump did anything wrong. You’re another spineless coward that can’t even answer a straight question. Do your job.

You mean like the Barr memo?

Why are you defending a criminal in office #ExtortionistTrump

Until the had the formal hearing @RepHartzler it was an investigation. I guess you’re not bright enough to know that or just stupid and want to chime in and go along with the other ignorant republicans say keep saying this stupid shit over and over again. Join the idiots.

Hey Vicky what are your thoughts on Presidential Bribery ? You have your own thoughts ?

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): can’t be bothered to actually read the transcripts (November 5, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Yes or No? (November 6, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): Yes or No?

06 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by in social media, Town Hall

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

Today, a video, released from Washington:

CAP Action @CAPAction
QUESTION: “Do you think it’s OK for a president to pressure foreign governments to interfere in our elections?”

@RepHartzler: “I gotta get to the airport.”

Americans deserve a straight answer to this simple question.
[….]
7:59 AM · Nov 6, 2019

Well, she’d get the same question at an open public town hall in the district. If we would ever have an open public town hall in the district.

Previously:

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): can’t be bothered to actually read the transcripts (November 5, 2019)

Rep. Vicky Hartzler (r): can’t be bothered to actually read the transcripts

05 Tuesday Nov 2019

Posted by in social media

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

Go. Read the transcripts [pdf].

“Trump must go”

Yesterday morning from Vicky Hartzler (r):

Rep. Vicky Hartzler @RepHartzler
“By denying due process to this president, Democrats have delegitimized the House and its constitutional powers, and have done irreparable damage to the country.”
@JimPressOffice and @RepSteveChabot are absolutely right.
[….]
9:10 AM · Nov 4, 2019

Sycophant.

Some of the responses:

The Impeachment Inquiry is an Investigation. There is no ‘Due Process” in investigations. GOP are doing irreparable damage to the country with this malign nonsense. All to protect a mobster. #RIPGOP #ImpeachAndRemove

It blows my mind you are covering for the criminal in the oval office. Why? What does he have on you and the @GOP? You are selling out the American people.

You know that once your cult has the reality of your lies explained to them your party is finished right?
Best for you to come clean, cut the Resident loose and try to save yourselves. That is what it will come down to & the sooner you realize this the better

Catch up, please. Rules were passed last week in the house that provide fairness, due process and transparency for the American public. You and every Republican in the house voted against it. Maybe you naively thought you could make impeachment go away. #RuleOfLaw #Constitution

I don’t see the problem with the Democrats using the rules the Republicans put in place when they held the house in ’15.
Explain your hypocrisy

AW let’s go for it-being trump in to testify -in person since suddenly written testimony isn’t ok. It will take about 5 minutes to perjure himself and we know republicans are happy to impeach over any lie —whether it has anything at all to do with governing.

Interesting that.

There’s no “due process” during an investigation phase. This is a ridiculous argument.

@JimPressOffice and @RepSteveChabot are absolutely wrong.

There is not a single good argument presented in this piece. Just saying “denying due process” does not somehow mount to anything credible by merely uttering the words over and over again.

Whistleblower protections are the LAW. If you you think it violates the constitution then let the courts decide. It is reprehensible that this person is being targeted for speaking their conscience. The Republican party has sunk to an unthinkable low.

This is an impeachment inquiry, not a court of law, not the trial in the Senate.

They are investigating a legitimate complaint trump verified and confessed to.

So far, that’s the only thing trump has providing the investigation. Why is that?

Stop lying
Trump has done irreparable harm to this country and have fun going down with him.

Are you capable of having your own thoughts or are you required to parrot GOP talking points? Seems very I don’t know, Stepford Wive-ish.

If you want to keep sipping the Kool-aid, by all means, do so. But do it somewhere where we don’t have to listen to it, fair?

This is gaslighting and beneath the dignity of your office.

They’re not. You know they’re not. We know they’re not.

Projection much?

Another republican lie.

Democrats are communists so when they have a majority they run OUR, not their, country like the communists they are! Pelosi can pack her bags as her tenoir as speaker ends in 2020 forever.

Heh.

Who writes this crap? Trump abused the power of his office, and he’s going to be impeached for it.

The End.

Funny, I thought the irreparable harm to the presidency came from the president when he attempted to bribe a foreign country to get dirt on a political rival. Silly me! It’s reallytge investigation of the bribe that’s the problem!

You simply can’t be this dumb and manage to get elected to Congress. Please tell me this is an act and you are not this stupid.

I suspect you don’t understand about 70% of these words.

The first testimony is released. So what will the GOP whine about next? Because it is already damning to Trump and GOP cult followers.

You people are delusional. Did you not read the same transcript I did? You don’t get to rearrange the conversation to fit your idea of an illegal act. Why shouldn’t we ask a country, who’s asking us for aid, to investigate meddling in our election. Are you all taking crazy pills

There’s more.

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Representative Vicky Hartzler (r) [2016 file photo].

Previously:

Impeachment: read the transcripts (November 4, 2019)

Impeachment: read the transcripts

04 Monday Nov 2019

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Today:

COMMITTEES RELEASE TESTIMONY OF YOVANOVITCH AND McKINLEY AS PART OF NEW PUBLIC PHASE OF IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY [pdf]
Washington, November 4, 2019

Washington, DC – Today, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released the transcripts of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch and former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State Ambassador P. Michael McKinley.
[….]

The entire administration should have been rolled up in a RICO prosecution by page 65:

[….]

A Well, if you have the President’s son saying, you know, We need to pull these clowns, or however he referred to me, it makes it hard to be a credible ambassador in a country.

Q And so what did you want Mr. Hale to do?

A What I wanted was the Secretary of State to issue a statement that said that, you know, I have his full confidence or something like that, to indicate that I, in fact, am the ambassador in Ukraine, and that I speak for the President, for the Secretary of State, for our country.

Q In contrast to Mr. Giuliani?

A I didn’t Put it that way.

Q But was that what you meant?

A Well, what I meant was that exactly what I just said.

Q So it wasn’t necessarily in direct relation to Mr. Giuliani. It was as much in response to the attacks on you from —

A Yes.

Q — others, including the President’s son?

[….]

THE CHAIRMAN: I just want to make sure I’m understanding. The statement you’re talking about, is that the requested statement by the Secretary of State?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yeah.

THE CHAIRMAN: So you were informed, basically, that the statement was not going to be issued by the Secretary of State because it could be undermined by the President?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes. No statement was going to be issued, not by the Secretary, not by anybody else.

THE CHAIRMAN: Because if the secretary did issue a statement, it might be undermined by the President?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Uh-huh.

THE CHAIRMAN: Is that a Yes?

MS. YOVANOVITCH: Yes, that is a Yes.

[….]

And when you know, of course, when the calls came from Mr. Giuliani to the White House and to the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, they got in touch with the European Bureau, and Mr. Mitchell, you know, held firm. I mean, it was a consular decision. The consular folks felt that they had made the right decision. And, you know, there was the added issue that, you know, basically the notorious reputation of Mr. Shokin. And, frankly, at the end of the day, he lied on his visa application.

Q How did he lie?

A He told us that he was going to visit a child or children, but then the next thing that we know is he was really going to see Mayor Giuliani.

Q And you learned that?

A From Mayor Giuliani.

Q Mr. Giuliani stated such?

A Yeah. I mean, I didn’t hear that directly, obviously, but —

[….]

“…a transnational crime syndicate masquerading as a government…”

Go. Read the whole damn thing [pdf].

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…

Idiot

02 Saturday Nov 2019

Posted by in social media

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

Today:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
The Whistleblower has disappeared. Where is the Whistleblower?
3:57 PM · Nov 2, 2019

Fascist.

Some of the responses:

“I can’t defend what I did, so I’ll focus on the person who accused me of doing it.”

The Whistleblower, in reality, is actually trying to stay safe.

The presidency has disappeared. Where is the presidency?

What’s the obsession? Ignorance?

The whistleblower just made a referral to investigate

You openly admitted the crime

You’re not SUPPOSED to know BECAUSE you can’t keep a SECRET.

WHY do you want to know?

TRump sure is worried about the whistleblower. He should be more concerned with what he has said himself.

They are no longer needed. SO many witnesses, and now reports of Barr trying to attack our intel agencies and all the OTHER crimes INCLUDING trying to expose a protected whistleblower… #ImpeachmentIsComing

You’re an idiot. Truly.

Their anonymity is protected by law, and it would be nice to have a president who understands that.

Wouldn’t you like to know? That way you could target him and his family. With all of the resources at your disposal as President I guess if you can’t find the whistleblower that means he or she is smarter than you, and the power of the rule of law is stronger than #Cult45.

None of your fucking business. We have whistleblower protections for a reason.

Daily reminder that retaliation against a whistleblower is a federal crime.

In your head. Every single minute of every single day!

Oooh the Whistleblower is still here, with his or her identity protected by law. But nice use of the office of the President to openly intimated the Whistleblower and future Whistleblowers. Great leader of the party of law and order.

Why? Your call transcript is call we need

Looking forward to your fireside reading, R you considering incorporating the redacted portions of the call into your “chat”?

Do you always need someone to punch?

Your words actions & crime

No need for the whistleblower when first hand witnesses with impeccable credentials are testifying. You’ll be impeached by Christmas. Thanksgiving if we’re lucky.

Okay, for the hundredth time: There’s a reason why you don’t get to know who the whistleblower is. He or she is protected by the whistleblower statutes which keep him or her from retaliation from, let’s say, you. You don’t get to know. Ever. Period.

I don’t know where the Whistleblower is, but these Mueller interview notes are fascinating. You and @seanhannity were up to no good. Flynn, Manafort, Jared, Bannon, Lewandowski, Sessions all in on it. This doesn’t look good for you, dude.

And on and on…

Bad combover. Check. Too long red tie. Check. Orange spray tan. Check. Tiny hands. Check. Cluelessness. Check…