Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News

Drudge Retort

User Info


Subscribe to avigdore's blog Subscribe


Special Features

Thursday, December 12, 2019

BORIS Johnson is on course for the biggest Tory landslide since Margaret Thatcher today - after the exit polls tipped the Tories to win a whopping 368 seats. Seconds after the polls closed at 10pm a joint poll put the Conservatives on track for a huge majority of 86, with Labour trailing behind on 191. read more

Sunday, December 08, 2019

The latest economic numbers -- 266,000 jobs created in November, unemployment at a 50-year low -- make one thing very clear: President Donald Trump has a path to win a second term next year. read more

Saturday, December 07, 2019

The Supreme Court on Friday granted President Trump's emergency request to temporarily block a congressional subpoena for his financial records from Deutsche Bank. read more

The nationwide survey, published Friday, showed interest in the probe has fallen to 62 percent, from 70 percent in a Nov 1-2 poll. The decline is a worrisome sign for Democrats, who have been concerned that "impeachment fatigue" would set in the longer the process is drawn out. Interest dropped among Republicans, Democrats and independents alike, the polling showed. Seventy-one percent of Democrats said they are following the impeachment inquiry, compared with 78 percent in early November. The number of GOP voters who said the same plummeted 10 points to 60 percent. Interest among independent voters dropped 8 points to 54 percent.

Monday, November 25, 2019

In a free society, we must accept that bad actors will try to take advantage of our openness. But we need to learn to question our own and others' biases on social media. We need to teach " to individuals of all ages " that we shouldn't simply believe or repost anonymous users because they used the same hashtag we did, and neither should we accuse them of being a Russian bot simply because we disagree with their perspective. We need to teach digital civility. It will not only weaken foreign efforts, but it will also help us better engage online with our neighbors, especially the ones we disagree with.


Article's #7 is a lie, not only did Ukraine interfere in the 2016 election, they broke the law to do so, at least according to their own courts as reported by:

One must wonder why tonyroma would push a narrative that includes such a spectacularly false statement like that. Is tonyroma ignorant of the situation, or are they intentionally trying to mislead everyone?

No I'm incapable of joining in your delusion that facts are opinions.
I'm right because the facts are on my side. #32 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-04 08:10 PM

I've never complained that you're too mean to me. I've expressed to you that you try to argue like a child.

Facts can be opinions. It is a fact that in Sondland testified that, in his opinion, the Pres engaged in quid pro quo. It is also a fact that Sondland admitted, under oath, that his testimony was based on speculation. It is a fact that Zelinskyy stated that the President did not engage in QPQ. Both of those are opinions....and they are facts.

Did you have any facts that you wanted to add that weren't also opinions? Did any of the evidence include directly linking Trump to a QPQ, because fivethirtyeight.com says it didn't.

In broad strokes, Democrats laid out three questions at the beginning of the public phase of the inquiry, which they said would serve as the foundation for their investigation (and perhaps also the articles of impeachment). Those questions are:

1.Did Trump request an investigation that would personally benefit his political interests?
2.Did Trump and his allies pressure Ukraine into committing to an investigation, including threatening to withhold a White House meeting or military aid?
3.Did the White House then try to suppress or conceal information about Trump's actions with regard to Ukraine?

My problem with your version of the situation is that I don't believe that there has been evidence, other than opinion, proving that the answer to #2 is yes. Please, really, if you have any evidence, not opinion, that shows that 2nd to have been done, share it. #2 really is a tricky bit. While I agree that there may be evidence of holding back from a meeting in exchange for an announced investigation, that hardly meets the criteria of 'serious'. On the other hand, while withholding military aid would certainly be considered 'serious', it fails to meet the criteria of having 'concrete evidence'.

But of course, the Democrats are still missing perhaps the most essential piece of the puzzle " a smoking gun for their second question of whether Trump ordered that military aid and/or a White House meeting be conditioned on the investigations.

To be sure, Democrats do have a wide array of evidence strongly suggesting that the people involved in pushing for the investigations " including the Ukrainians " understood that a White House meeting and nearly $400 million in military aid hung in the balance. Multiple witnesses testified over the course of the public hearings that it was clear to them that there was a quid pro quo. But as Republicans pointed out repeatedly over the course of the hearings, none of these witnesses ever talked to Trump directly. Even Sondland, the one witness who did communicate with Trump directly about the investigations, said he only "presumed" there was a connection and had never heard Trump say it.

Please show us your expertise.

Drudge Retort

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