Jump to content

The Congressional Committee Hearings

Politics   (1,385 Views 40 Comments)
6 Followers; 99,333 Visitors; 15,977 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

You are reading page 2 of The Congressional Committee Hearings. If you want to start from the beginning Go to First Page.

2 hours ago, herring_RN said:

 Frequently, the Drudge Report links to conspiracy sources such as ZeroHedge and Infowars as well as Questionable sources, with very poor fact check records, such as Breitbart, WND and the Gateway Pundit. Drudge Report also publishes columns from right-wing journalists who have poor track records with factual information, such as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Roger Stone.

The Drudge Report has also promoted numerous debunked conspiracy theories such as: The President Obama Birther conspiracy and that Undocumented children are violent criminals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/28/business/media/28birth.html

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/20/drudge-report/drudge-links-report-claiming-white-house-press-bri/

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/apr/28/drudge-report/drudge-says-clippers-owner-democrat/

I plan to listen to the investigation where people testify under oath. Some media sources are mostly Fake News. Others are mostly accurate, but publish errors either due to bias or human error. 

A legitimate media, which publishes something incorrect, will correct it, either at the bottom of the story, or in a corrections section.

Stories which are fast moving, such as a mass shooting, or whistleblower situation, may contain errors not because of bias, or deliberate human error, but because of the pace of the situation.

I don't imagine any NPR, WaPo or NY Times reporter wants to make an error on such important issues, where lives are involved and the very existence of our democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ukrainian prosecutor who probed gas company linked to Hunter Biden insists there was NO evidence Joe Biden's son did anything illegal

  •  Yuriy Lutsenko said that Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything' while at Burisma
  • Former prosecutor general closed investigation against gas company in 2017 
  •   Lutsenko met with Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, earlier this year to discuss it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7511163/Ukrainian-prosecutor-insists-NO-evidence-Joe-Bidens-son-did-illegal.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Ukrainian prosecutor who probed gas company linked to Hunter Biden insists there was NO evidence Joe Biden's son did anything illegal

  •  Yuriy Lutsenko said that Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything' while at Burisma
  • Former prosecutor general closed investigation against gas company in 2017 
  •   Lutsenko met with Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, earlier this year to discuss it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7511163/Ukrainian-prosecutor-insists-NO-evidence-Joe-Bidens-son-did-illegal.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Whether or not Trump's claims about Biden  are legitimate (they're not) Trump's actions are illegal, dangerous and impeachable.

Are the Departments of State and Justice complicit as has been implicated? Do men like Barr believe that they are defending democracy in general and our republic specifically with dishonesty?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, herring_RN said:

Ukrainian prosecutor who probed gas company linked to Hunter Biden insists there was NO evidence Joe Biden's son did anything illegal

  •  Yuriy Lutsenko said that Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything' while at Burisma
  • Former prosecutor general closed investigation against gas company in 2017 
  •   Lutsenko met with Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, earlier this year to discuss it

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7511163/Ukrainian-prosecutor-insists-NO-evidence-Joe-Bidens-son-did-illegal.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Yeah, but he hasn't been exonerated. 

Edited by MoondoggieRN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lil Nel said:

Stories which are fast moving, such as a mass shooting, or whistleblower situation, may contain errors not because of bias, or deliberate human error, but because of the pace of the situation.

Yes, it's more important to get a story out there.  Of lesser importance is to get it right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

Whether or not Trump's claims about Biden  are legitimate (they're not) Trump's actions are illegal, dangerous and impeachable.

Are the Departments of State and Justice complicit as has been implicated? Do men like Barr believe that they are defending democracy in general and our republic specifically with dishonesty?

Coupled with Trump's clearly impeachable behavior regarding the Ukraine, is the meeting he held with Russians, in which he blabbed classified information.

We already knew about that.

But remember, we still don't know what he told Putin in Helsinki.

I am sure you all recall the meeting last year, in which most of the intelligence community condemned his fawning over Putin.

He sat on Putin's lap. Complimented his looks, shined his shoes, and so on.

Trump denounced the US in that meeting, by taking Russia's side, over our own intelligence.

And we have no accounting for that meeting! What the pair discussed privately.

This debacle is simply the latest, in a string of treasonous behavior engaged in by Trump.

Trumpsters must be excited that their boy endorses the punishment for treason!

Edited by Lil Nel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, MoondoggieRN said:

Yeah, but he hasn't been exonerated. 

By definition, he has been exonerated.  The legal definition of exoneration is "The removal of a burden, charge, responsibility, duty, or blame imposed by law".  There was an investigation into the company Biden subsequently joined the board of, including an investigation into Biden's role in the company, and found he committed no wrongdoing.  There was evidence of corruption within the company, but it occurred 2 years before Biden joined the board.  

That being said, it should be considered inappropriate for a family member of a prominent US government official to parlay that family connection into foreign business dealings.

As inappropriate as that is, it's not in the same league as using taxpayer money to extort favors from foreign governments for personal political gain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

That being said, it should be considered inappropriate for a family member of a prominent US government official to parlay that family connection into foreign business dealings.

As inappropriate as that is, it's not in the same league as using taxpayer money to extort favors from foreign governments for personal political gain.  

I think that Biden should say that publicly. I think all elected officials should acknowledge that family connection/business no no. We could start with the McConnell family if we ever have time to consider anyone beyond the Trumps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toomuchbaloney said:

I think that Biden should say that publicly. I think all elected officials should acknowledge that family connection/business no no. We could start with the McConnell family if we ever have time to consider anyone beyond the Trumps.

Biden's public comments on this haven't helped, he's managed to give some traction to a topic that in reality has none, which is classic Biden.  

But you're correct, it should be pointed out that the current Presidency / regime have made any thought of such standards pointless, his family has no shortage of foreign financial entanglements, including family that work in the WH, and most importantly including the President himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are saying he released "classified: information, the thing is though he has the power to do that at will.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

Edited by Kyrshamarks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

People are saying he released "classified: information, the thing is though he has the power to do that at will.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/may/16/james-risch/does-president-have-ability-declassify-anything-an/

Experts agreed that the president, as commander-in-chief, is ultimately responsible for classification and declassification. When someone lower in the chain of command handles classification and declassification duties -- which is usually how it’s done -- it’s because they have been delegated to do so by the president directly, or by an appointee chosen by the president.

The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan -- which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance -- addresses this line of authority.

"The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."

Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."

In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."

Who is saying this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Kyrshamarks said:

People are saying he released "classified: information, the thing is though he has the power to do that at will.

 

And he has been shown to have poor judgement on releasing classified information, i.e. the infamous meeting in the oval office with 2 Kremlin officials, and more recently, with security measures built into fencing at the southern border. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×