So will Trump's appointee Sondland plead the Fifth today?

[wino]

We are a free and self-governing people. If a president can be impeached based on an anonymous bureaucrat (who may or may not have his own political agenda) filing a form, with the accompanying adverse effects on the country, then we are less free. For sure, I realize you'll never be convinced of this until an anomymous Republican blows the whistle on a dmocrat president, but in the meantime do not confuse yourself with people who believe fairness and justice.

A president cannot be impeached by an anonymous bureaucrat.

It takes a vote of the House, who -- get this(!) -- are themselves, elected officials.

If a President strongarms a foreign government into launching a smear job on a political rival, are we not also less free?

You're advocating for mob rule, not the Rule of Law.

PS - I'm a registered Republican who likes fiscal responsibility and limited government. I'm just not a slave to the Cult of Trump.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

HR: Mr. Wino, we have received a report that you have been falsifying your expense reports.

Response A: Absolutely not. All of my expenses are well documented and per company policy to the best of my knowledge. Which ones would you like to discuss?

Response B: Who told you that? They must be never-Wino'er. It's a coup, I tell you!

See, if I did falsify my reports, it doesn't matter that I think it was Rick in logistics who ratted me out because he was jealous of my promotion. It only matters whether or not I violated a policy that could reasonably result in my termination.

Bullshit. A more realistic scenario:

Mr. Wino, we have received a report that you have been falsifying your expense reports.

Response A: I'd sure like to know who the hell told you that. All of my expenses are well documented and per company policy to the best of my knowledge. Which ones would you like to discuss?

If this isn't your response, then you're not very smart, because someone is trying to sabotage you at your job, and you're apparently content to just let it keep on going until they finally succeed.

 

[wino]

That’s one way of looking at it.

If somebody repeated a rumor about me, such as cheating on my wife, I wouldn’t offer evidence to the contrary. I just know I haven’t cheated on her. So to be blunt, I’d like to know where you heard it so I’d know whose ass to kick.

Right, because at that point, it's about the kicking of someone's ass, not proving your innocence. You don't need to know who it was to prove your innocence.

The catch is, the guy who is cheating on his wife also wants to kick the ass of the guy who ratted him out.

 

[07pilt]

We are a free and self-governing people. If a president can be impeached based on an anonymous bureaucrat (who may or may not have his own political agenda) filing a form, with the accompanying adverse effects on the country, then we are less free. For sure, I realize you'll never be convinced of this until an anomymous Republican blows the whistle on a dmocrat president, but in the meantime do not confuse yourself with people who believe fairness and justice.

The thing is if the president is impeached it won't be based on the an anonymous bureaucrat, it will be based on the public testimony of a dozen or so witnesses.

 

[wino]

Bullshit. A more realistic scenario:

Mr. Wino, we have received a report that you have been falsifying your expense reports.

Response A: I'd sure like to know who the hell told you that. All of my expenses are well documented and per company policy to the best of my knowledge. Which ones would you like to discuss?

If this isn't your response, then you're not very smart, because someone is trying to sabotage you at your job, and you're apparently content to just let it keep on going until they finally succeed.

What's the point of asking? I've worked at the company long enough to know that the whistleblower is protected. And who it is makes no difference. HR won't fire me if I did nothing wrong. And they will fire me if I did, no mater how much of a prick the other guy is.

 

[wino]

The thing is if the president is impeached it won't be based on the an anonymous bureaucrat, it will be based on the public testimony of a dozen or so witnesses.

IDONTCAREISTILLWANNAKNOWTHEGUYSNAME

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

If a President strongarms a foreign government into launching a smear job on a political rival, are we not also less free?

If that is in fact the case, then he should be removed from office, after fair and open proceedings, with the American people being privy to ALL the witnesses, and other evidence.

 

[GoPokes43]

And if one and only one person heard this, there wouldn't be much of a case if they didn't testify.

If a dozen other people were all willing to speak to the exact same thing, there would be a much better case.

OK. Let's fix it then:

Shouldn't the analogy be that you and your crew were talking about stopping someone from robbing a bank and a gaggle of 12 year girls imagined you were plotting a bank robbery ...

 

[wino]

Bullshit. A more realistic scenario:

Mr. Wino, we have received a report that you have been falsifying your expense reports.

Response A: I'd sure like to know who the hell told you that. All of my expenses are well documented and per company policy to the best of my knowledge. Which ones would you like to discuss?

If this isn't your response, then you're not very smart, because someone is trying to sabotage you at your job, and you're apparently content to just let it keep on going until they finally succeed.

There's also the second possibility.

I did falsify my expense reports, I've got no excuse to lean on, and raging at the guy who informed the company I was stealing from them is all I have left.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

What's the point of asking? I've worked at the company long enough to know that the whistleblower is protected. And who it is makes no difference. HR won't fire me if I did nothing wrong. And they will fire me if I did, no mater how much of a prick the other guy is.

You're either not very honest, or not very smart.

 

[wino]

OK. Let's fix it then:

Shouldn't the analogy be that you and your crew were talking about stopping someone from robbing a bank and a gaggle of 12 year girls imagined you were plotting a bank robbery ...

The imagination of a gaggle of "12 year girls" should be pretty easy to refute with facts.

I'd call everyone I was talking to about preventing the robbery to testify under oath what we were really doing.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

PS - I'm a registered Republican who likes fiscal responsibility and limited government. I'm just not a slave to the Cult of Trump.

Sure you are, McKeating5.

 

[wino]

You're either not very honest, or not very smart.

I'm both honest (because I don't falsify expense reports) and smart (because I know how whistelblower protection works).

You are neither, as today's charade exhibits.

FWIW, I think Trump is smarter than he is honest.

 

[GoPokes43]

The imagination of a gaggle of "12 year girls" should be pretty easy to refute with facts.

I'd call everyone I was talking to about preventing the robbery to testify under oath what we were really doing.

No you wouldn't, not in the US generally. You would find evidence first instead of going on a witch hunt.

 

[wino]

Sure you are, McKeating5.

Why, because anyone who dares not fall in line must not be a "real" one?

 

[wino]

No you wouldn't, not in the US generally. You would find evidence first instead of going on a witch hunt.

Wait, I thought I was the accused? Now I'm going on the witch hunt?

The evidence is being presented right in front of your eyes. And what does 12-year old girls have to do with any of it?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

I'm both honest (because I don't falsify expense reports) and smart (because I know how whistelblower protection works).

You are neither, as today's charade exhibits.

FWIW, I think Trump is smarter than he is honest.

And you'll eventually be unemployed, possibly convicted, or the real culprit will eventually destroy the company.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Why, because anyone who dares not fall in line must not be a "real" one?

No, because you seem a lot like John McCain. Davey Crockett when it comes to fighting republicans, wishy-washy invertebrate when it come to fighting democrats.

 

[wino]

[

No, because you seem a lot like John McCain. Davey Crockett when it comes to fighting republicans, wishy-washy invertebrate when it come to fighting democrats.

If that’s what it means to remain true to ideals rather than a party, then I concede. You got me. I’m not a blind Trumpublican stooge. The gig is up.

 

[wino]

And you'll eventually be unemployed, possibly convicted, or the real culprit will eventually destroy the company.

Well, I’ve never falsified an expense report, and I’m still employed.

People have been terminated for that, and the least relevant piece of information was who turned them in.

Funny how it all works.

 

[wyomingosualum]

Right, because at that point, it's about the kicking of someone's ass, not proving your innocence. You don't need to know who it was to prove your innocence.

The catch is, the guy who is cheating on his wife also wants to kick the ass of the guy who ratted him out.

So reasonable reactions vary, then.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

Well, I’ve never falsified an expense report, and I’m still employed.

People have been terminated for that, and the least relevant piece of information was who turned them in.

Funny how it all works.

What about people wrongly accused of doing so? You're leaving a key fact out of your original hypo.

 

[wino]

What about people wrongly accused of doing so?

HR’s job is to collect the facts. I might not even hear about the complaint if HR deems there is no merit to it.

Regardless of how far it goes, neither I, nor anyone in my work group, nor the rest of the company is “owed” that persons identity.

Do you really not know how this works?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

HR’s job is to collect the facts. I might not even hear about the complaint if HR deems there is no merit to it.

Regardless of how far it goes, neither I, nor anyone in my work group, nor the rest of the company is “owed” that persons identity.

Do you really not know how this works?

I'm currently self-employed, and was "1st mate" to the boss in a small office for my entire career before that, so we never had to deal with whistleblower laws.

But in your hypothetical, you DID hear about it. Please don't try to piss down my leg and tell me that it's raining by telling me that you'd just carry on business as usual knowing that a co-worker had it in for you and was trying to sabotage your career.

Regardless, we're not talking about a bunch of corporate schlubs padding their expense accounts. We're talking about the President of the United States. Since this involves his potential removal, the American people deserve to know EVERYONE involved, as well as any chicanery involved.

BTW, good luck with that co-worker who has it in for you.

 

[MegaPoke]

But I know you don't really believe this.

Oh, I 100% believe this.

Contrary to what you guys tend to think about anyone who supports Trump, I am a Republican-loathing Constitutional libertarian, with my own critiques of BDD. I do however loathe the #resistance and all it's transparently bullshit efforts to overturn an election rather than face a vote on ideas next year.

And the whistle-leaker is smack in the middle of this flaccid coup. It's not in his purview to "blow the whistle" on disagreeing with the CIC on foreign policy. Period. Ciaramello needs to answer some questions, and if there's no there there (spoiler - there's not. We've seen this movie before), he needs to share a cell in Leavenworth with Lt Col Flounder.

 

[2012Bearcat]

Why is the political leanings of the WB relevant? It doesn't change any of the testimony that we have already heard. Let's pretend that the WB turns out to be Hilary Clinton. How does that change anything? Does that mean we now don't believe anything that Sondland said? You guys already think Vindman is a Dem operative. Does he become a double Dem operative if you find out that the WB is a never Trumper?

The reason it is important is to find out is, whether this entire charade was another Democrat political stunt. While I know liberals don't care, the rest of the country wants to know if Adam Schiff colluded with the Whistle blower and if so who all is involved. The rest of the country is tired of Democrats throwing a temper tantrum instead of getting things done that will benefit the country.

 

[wino]

The reason it is important is to find out is, whether this entire charade was another Democrat political stunt. While I know liberals don't care, the rest of the country wants to know if Adam Schiff colluded with the Whistle blower and if so who all is involved. The rest of the country is tired of Democrats throwing a temper tantrum instead of getting things done that will benefit the country.

Holding up congressionally approved foreign aid until the recepient of that aid makes a public statement advancing a batshit crazy conspiracy theory against your personal political opponent is not “foreign policy”... it’s a shakedown.

It was never about the investigation. It was about getting the announcement to run.

Regardless of identity, the WB report still had to be reviewed and deemed credible by the ICIG and the DNI. It is now being corroborated by witnesses under oath. The substance of their collective testimony has yet to be challenged by anyone else under oath.

 

[wino]

I'm currently self-employed, and was "1st mate" to the boss in a small office for my entire career before that, so we never had to deal with whistleblower laws.

But in your hypothetical, you DID hear about it. Please don't try to piss down my leg and tell me that it's raining by telling me that you'd just carry on business as usual knowing that a co-worker had it in for you and was trying to sabotage your career.

Regardless, we're not talking about a bunch of corporate schlubs padding their expense accounts. We're talking about the President of the United States. Since this involves his potential removal, the American people deserve to know EVERYONE involved, as well as any chicanery involved.

BTW, good luck with that co-worker who has it in for you.

The facts speak for themselves. Removal is delegated to the Senate in the Constitution. You’re making the rest up to fit your feels.

 

[CowboyJD]

I'm doing no such thing. All I'm asking for is a process that is fundamentally fair. In the USA, "fundamental fairness" generally gives an accused every feasible chance to obtain favorable evidence.

"Exculpatory", yes absolutely...."favorable" not necessarily.

 

[wino]

"Exculpatory", yes absolutely...."favorable" not necessarily.

And how would the defense go about demonstrating that the identity of the WB/CI is exculpatory, rather than just a sideshow to distract & conflate?

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

[

If that’s what it means to remain true to ideals rather than a party, then I concede. You got me. I’m not a blind Trumpublican stooge. The gig is up.

Oh, I 100% believe this.

Contrary to what you guys tend to think about anyone who supports Trump, I am a Republican-loathing Constitutional libertarian, with my own critiques of BDD. I do however loathe the #resistance and all it's transparently bullshit efforts to overturn an election rather than face a vote on ideas next year.

And the whistle-leaker is smack in the middle of this flaccid coup. It's not in his purview to "blow the whistle" on disagreeing with the CIC on foreign policy. Period. Ciaramello needs to answer some questions, and if there's no there there (spoiler - there's not. We've seen this movie before), he needs to share a cell in Leavenworth with Lt Col Flounder.

Amen. Except that I'm not Republican loathing. Just pre-Trump-republican loathing (Ie. McCvnt, Mittens, Jeb, K-Suck, etc).

Definitely not a Trump stooge. If anyone else were president, I would still find SJWs/marxists/socialists/collectivists/feminists (and a host of other anticapitalists) to be just as loathsome. I also won't deny that I have been ecstatic the last 4+ years over Trump's "never back down" attitude toward them.

Although Amy Coney Barrett would have been my first choice, I certainly can't complain about Trump's supreme court appointments.

As far as other issues go:

tax policy - great!

immigration - very good, did the best with what he had to work with

trade - did what eventually had to be done, tariffs are sometimes a necessary evil

spending - barf !!! sadly, no one wants to give up their share of pork

treatment of the press - ABSO-FREAKIN'-LUTELY LOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!

Point being, if someone else were president, I'd still hold the same opinions on the above.

 

[wino]

Oh, I 100% believe this.

Contrary to what you guys tend to think about anyone who supports Trump, I am a Republican-loathing Constitutional libertarian, with my own critiques of BDD. I do however loathe the #resistance and all it's transparently bullshit efforts to overturn an election rather than face a vote on ideas next year.

And the whistle-leaker is smack in the middle of this flaccid coup. It's not in his purview to "blow the whistle" on disagreeing with the CIC on foreign policy. Period. Ciaramello needs to answer some questions, and if there's no there there (spoiler - there's not. We've seen this movie before), he needs to share a cell in Leavenworth with Lt Col Flounder.

If you’ve already decided that there’s no there there, what do you make of all of the testimony so far corroborrating his report?

Now, if we got all of the guys claiming “executive immunity” to testify under penalty of perjury that the WB was deceitful, then I could see the need to hear from him again.

But I have not seen a single person testify to that.

 

[soonerinlOUisiana]

"Exculpatory", yes absolutely...."favorable" not necessarily.

In my state, attorneys are pretty much required to disclose unfavorable evidence to the other side when requested, unless one is representing a criminal defendant, of course. This is probably not inconsistent (double neg) with your point.

 

[MegaPoke]

If you’ve already decided that there’s no there there, what do you make of all of the testimony so far corroborrating his report?

Now, if we got all of the guys claiming “executive immunity” to testify under penalty of perjury that the WB was deceitful, then I could see the need to hear from him again.

But I have not seen a single person testify to that.

Re: “testimony”



You have to be a pretty willing vessel to fill yourself up with transparent #resistance lies at this point in the game.

 

[Been Jammin]

If you’ve already decided that there’s no there there, what do you make of all of the testimony so far corroborrating his report?

Now, if we got all of the guys claiming “executive immunity” to testify under penalty of perjury that the WB was deceitful, then I could see the need to hear from him again.

But I have not seen a single person testify to that.

You are wasting your time. At this point, the Trumpsters can't refute any of the testimony, so they have nothing to hang their hat on other than...
-but the identity of the WB
-but Vindman is a Ukraine nationalist
-but Sondland
etc.

You aren't going to change their minds. Of course, you already know that. Carry on.

 

[MegaPoke]

You are wasting your time. At this point, the Trumpsters can't refute any of the testimony, so they have nothing to hang their hat on other than...
-but the identity of the WB
-but Vindman is a Ukraine nationalist
-but Sondland
etc.

You aren't going to change their minds. Of course, you already know that. Carry on.

@CBradSmith hey look Brad. Been Jammin is flexing to the newb in the third person - a theatrical aside for public consumption.

 

[Been Jammin]

@CBradSmith hey look Brad. Been Jammin is flexing to the newb in the third person - a theatrical aside for public consumption.

newb he may be.
owning you he is.

 

[wino]

Re: “testimony”

View embedded media

You have to be a pretty willing vessel to fill yourself up with transparent #resistance lies at this point in the game.

And you would have to be a pretty willing vessel to fill yourself up with the Trumpistan lies at this point.

Guess we’re both just a couple of willing vessels who’ll have to agree to disagree.

 

[MegaPoke]

newb he may be.
owning you he is.

No.

 

[wino]

@CBradSmith hey look Brad. Been Jammin is flexing to the newb in the third person - a theatrical aside for public consumption.

Newb? I resent the term! Lurker would be more appropriate.