Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, October 08, 2019

"The official stated that there was already a conversation underway with White House lawyers about how to handle the discussion because, in the official's view, the president had clearly committed a criminal act by urging a foreign power to investigate a U.S. person for the purposes of advancing his own re-election bid in 2020," the C.I.A. officer wrote.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

What about her emails????????????? Or Bengazi!!!! Bengazi !!!!! Bengazi!!!!! Someone pay attention to us, or we might elect a narcissistic moron!!!!!! Oh wait! We did!

#1 | Posted by zelkova at 2019-10-08 09:10 PM | Reply

Why are we reporting on 'reactions' at this point? We have the GD Transcript - and it was such a nothingburger that Schiffhead had to re-write the script for his Congressional skit. I really think the Dems never thought Trump would have he balls to release the transcript of the call - it is actually pretty dangerous (from a precedence perspective) to do so. But, he called their bluff and are left trying to make the case that people should not believe their lying eyes. Quid Pro Quo is clearly stated in the transcript like the right to post-birth abortion is clearly stated in the US Constitution.

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-10-08 09:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

So if the call was so perfect.. why all the obstructions?
Let everyone testify.. the truth will set you free ( unless the truth is your garbage)

#3 | Posted by 503jc69 at 2019-10-09 01:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

" I really think the Dems never thought Trump would have he balls to release the transcript of the call - it is actually pretty dangerous (from a precedence perspective) to do so."

And he never did. That "transcript" was just a summary not a real transcript and every person with a brain already knows that.

#4 | Posted by danni at 2019-10-09 07:10 AM | Reply

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part. Under questioning from Republicans during last Friday's impeachment inquiry interview with Atkinson, the inspector general revealed that the whistleblower's possible bias was not that he was simply a registered Democrat. It was that he had a significant tie to one of the Democratic presidential candidates currently vying to challenge President Trump in next year's election.

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.
drudge.com

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-10-09 10:56 AM | Reply

Why are we reporting on 'reactions' at this point?

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg

Because the white house is hiding everything else. Why are they doing that?

#6 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 11:19 AM | Reply

Now, however, there is word of more evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part.

#5 | Posted by AndreaMackris

So? Did the whistleblower's bias MAKE trump ask foreign nations to help his re election?

Did it bother repubs that Linda Tripp was biased against clinton?

#7 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 11:20 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Did it bother repubs that Linda Tripp was biased against clinton?

POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2019-10-09 11:20 AM "

The person who bitches about whataboutism is engaging in...
...whataboutism.

Speaksoftly: Do as I say, not as I do.

#8 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 11:38 AM | Reply

"The IG said [the whistleblower] worked or had some type of professional relationship with one of the Democratic candidates," said one person with knowledge of what was said.

"The IG said the whistleblower had a professional relationship with one of the 2020 candidates," said another person with knowledge of what was said.

That same IG said the relationship or connection was inconsequential in light of the information being presented.

Why do you keep leaving that quote out from your link?

Here, let me do it for you you dishonest hack:

In the Aug. 26 letter, Atkinson said that even though there was evidence of possible bias on the whistleblower's part, "such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern 'appears credible,' particularly given the other information the ICIG obtained during its preliminary review."

#9 | Posted by jpw at 2019-10-09 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Speaksoftly: Do as I say, not as I do.

#8 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

You still don't understand "whataboutism". Speaks made a point... that the whistleblower's political affiliation or bias does not matter (the person is just a whistleblower... they don't claim any unique knowledge or expertise so Congress is supposed to - and has - independently verify their claims). Then he supports his point (correctly) with an instance of conservatives not caring about the bias of a witness providing independent evidence (tapes) in an impeachment case (similar situation).

"Whataboutism" is a tu quoque, which is an appeal to hypocrisy. If he had JUST said the statement about Linda Tripp (you didn't care about it then but you care about it now), that would have been whataboutism. But instead he gave you a point that you can actually debate and/or refute (that bias of the whistleblower does not matter in this case) and SUPPORTED that point with the Linda Tripp comment.

What conservatives are doing here is like saying that the tapes that Linda Tripp handed over should be ignored because Linda Tripp was biased against Clinton. She had evidence that did not depend upon her credibility, so attacking her personally to defend Clinton would be an ad hominem logical fallacy.

That is the exact same logical fallacy that Andrea is trying to get away with above in reference to the whistleblower.

#10 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-09 12:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

"You still don't understand "whataboutism".

#10 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL "

whataboutism
/(h)w'd'boudiz'm/
nounBRITISH
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.

Exactly what speaksoftly was doing, but admittedly in an interrogative format. Looks like you are the one who doesn't understand.

#11 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 12:43 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Frightened because investigations of Biden's coke addicted son and the collusion witch hunt would uncover information embarrassing to the deep state and Democrats. There is a reason Nancy doesn't want Republicans able to subpoena witnesses and participate.

#12 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-10-09 12:57 PM | Reply

The person who bitches about whataboutism is engaging in...
...whataboutism.

Speaksoftly: Do as I say, not as I do.

#8 | Posted by goatman

Morning goat. How many discussions are you going to scream for attention in today?

Someone get this guy a bottle.

#13 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 01:11 PM | Reply

There is a reason Nancy doesn't want Republicans able to subpoena witnesses and participate.

#12 | Posted by visitor_

Yeah because repubs have proven that they will do anything to protect this con man, including lie, sell crazy conspiracies, make americans mistrust the military, and ruin the country.

Tell me - if trump is such an anti-corruption warrior, how come he doesn't care about any corruption that doesn't involve his political rivals? How come he is best friends with the most corrupt leaders on earth?

#14 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 01:13 PM | Reply

"Morning goat. How many discussions are you going to scream for attention in today?
Someone get this guy a bottle.

#13 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Scream for attention? None. That's not my style. But if you meant, "How many of my hypocricies and lies are you going to point out today", the answer will be every one I see. So that's up to you. If you don't like my responding to you, don't engage in double standards. Don't lie. It's that easy.

#15 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 01:20 PM | Reply

Don't lie. It's that easy.

#15 | Posted by goatman

"Don't lie! And dont point it out when I lie!"

Everything you whine about others doing you've done yourself- Lies, double standards, strawmen, name calling.
You do it all.

Since you can't actually debate anyone or offer a decent defense of your party which has turned into a con man's cult, you focus on fighting lies, name calling and double standards and think that means you have the high ground.

It's completely transparent and pathetic.

Argue the point of the thread and stop whining or go away.

How do you feel about trump asking foreign nations to dig up dirt on his political enemies - is this a crime or not?

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 01:58 PM | Reply

But if you meant, "How many of my hypocricies and lies are you going to point out today", the answer will be every one I see.

#15 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

Lol.

Speaks... looks like you have a stalker.

#17 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-09 02:59 PM | Reply

Who is 'an official', and what is that person an official of?

#18 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-10-09 04:14 PM | Reply

Who is 'an official', and what is that person an official of?
#18 | POSTED BY SNIPER

Time will tell.

#19 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2019-10-09 04:18 PM | Reply

"Speaks... looks like you have a stalker.

#17 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL "

If that's what you call someone calling out her hypocrisies and lies, then you are right. I'm stalking.

Getting serious -- I know you are trying badly for a gotcha goat moment. You've had a lot of swings while at the plate. But you diminish your brand when you defend the likes of speaksoftly. Surely you haven't missed the others who call her out as well. She's one of the worst when it comes to making ---- up and invoking double standards. Defend someone who actually deserves to be defended. That's my suggestion.

But you choose your battles. Good luck fighting them!

#20 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 04:19 PM | Reply

#20 | Posted by goatman

What's your perspective on the president of the united states asking foreign countries to investigate his political rivals?

We all know your perspective on whining about other posters.

#21 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 05:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Getting serious -- I know you are trying badly for a gotcha goat moment.

Lol... just trying (and succeeding) at triggering the little snowflake.

You aren't the only one who can troll. :)

But you diminish your brand when you defend the likes of speaksoftly. Surely you haven't missed the others who call her out as well.

#20 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

I have called Speaks out. Posted recently calling out the immature name calling. Just a waste of everyone's time to feed a troll and adds nothing to the conversation.

And I defend people when they are right. Speaks didn't engage in a logical fallacy. They fact that you still don't understand does not make it any less true. Think of it this way. If you make a legitimate point (one that is concrete enough to be able to be argued AGAINST), then you are probably not engaging in a logical fallacy. The point made here was that bias does not matter because the claims have been, or will be, independently verified. Which means that Andrea was engaged in an ad hominem. But, if you are just deflecting from a point then you are most likely engaged in a logical fallacy, and I will call you out.

Andrea - ad hominem

Speaks - no logical fallacy

Goat - just confused

#22 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-09 05:31 PM | Reply

I know you are trying badly for a gotcha goat moment.

#20 | POSTED BY GOATMAN

And seriously... talking about yourself in the third person?

How much do you idolize Trump such that you are emulating his mannerisms?

Or are you Trump?

Covfefe?

#23 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-10-09 05:34 PM | Reply

" just trying (and succeeding)
#22 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL "

So you appointed yourself referee and declared yourself the victor.

Good for you!

Why is it your only "victories" are self-declared?

#24 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 05:36 PM | Reply

"" just trying (and succeeding)
#22 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL ""

Now don't high-five yourself in the mirror too hard. If it breaks, you could get some nasty gashes.

I'm sure you've already done it, buy if not, print your self declared victory out and put it on your bedroom wall with all the pink "participant" ribbons you've acquired in your life. It'll look so nice there, don't you think?

One more thing -- I heard Winners R Us trophy shop is having a sale. Go buy yourself one to commemorate your self-declared victory over the evil goatman! I'll bet speaksoftly would actually pitch in.

#25 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 05:42 PM | Reply

I'll bet speaksoftly would actually pitch in.

#25 | Posted by goatman

I'm just sitting here waiting for you to address the topic of the thread and wondering how long you think you can dodge it with petty squabbles? Probably indefinitely. Petty squabbles seem to be your whole reason to exist.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 05:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I'm just sitting here waiting for you to address the topic of the thread and wondering how long you think you can dodge it with petty squabbles? Probably indefinitely. Petty squabbles seem to be your whole reason to exist.

#26 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

I realize it probably bothers you greatly when I point out your lies and hypocrisies. Again, if you don't like that (and clearly you don't) try to be honest and don't engage in double standards. It's that simple.

I understand that pathological liars can't help themselves, but that's your problem, not mine. I'll continue to challenge your every lie and hypocritical stances. Get used to it. Maybe you'll get an occasional goat hater to swoop in and take your side, no matter how wrong, but that won't stop me.

Deal with it, buttercup.

#27 | Posted by goatman at 2019-10-09 06:01 PM | Reply

Deal with it, buttercup.

#27 | Posted by goatman

Deal with what? You derailing every thread because you can't defend your party which has turned into the cult of a con man? Derailing every debate into a sematic fight about whether six is more than a half dozen? Youre a one trick pony. It's boring.

But if my party was totally subservient to a criminal con man, I guess I might try the same strategy. Anything to avoid discussing what you are and what you serve.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 06:17 PM | Reply

Back to the topic - what are your thoughts on your cult leader asking foreign nations to help him win an election?

Haven't you gotten the talking points yet?

#29 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-10-09 06:17 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort