Emphasis mine, above. Who was bringing up all these different ideas and theories that confused Sondland?
We know who. The so-called whistleblower, and/or Vindman, and possibly more. I'd speculate Marie Yovanovitch too. Individuals who were, at a minimum, close to the Ukraine involvement in our 2016 election. Indviduals who heard Trump ask the Ukraine government to investigate their own corrupt activities and immediately began spreading rumors and asking leading questions via text messages (which they knew would create an evidentiary trail). Individuals who, in at least one case, admittedly added material to an official read-out of a Presidential call that was not actually present in the call.
The rest of the article is also worth reading, to understand how the media are twisting and misrepresenting the testimony of the witnesses.
This is more like dystopia. Leaving aside what he was accused of (which sounds bad, but this is China we're talking about), the man escaped a prison camp and lived, presumably peacefully, in a tiny cave without human interaction for years. And they found him anyway.
I'm skeptical. Graham isn't in a position to make that promise, and I don't think we've seen ANY significant release from DOJ hierarchy that was not a Friday-evening document dump. That said, Graham is in a position to know, and did schedule a hearing. So we'll find out.
Falsifying prison records seems like they are getting off pretty easy for looking the other way during a murder. Hopefully they are cooperating... except that would show up as a plea deal, not an indictment.
This is not math. The public schools are a plot to deny basic knowledge and reasoning skills to everyone trapped there. Only those wealthy enough to educate their children privately will know anything.
And for those taking umbrage at the title of the post: ignorance is curable.
Some additional details, and the report itself. OPR expands to "Office of Professional Responsibility", an ethics watchdor within DOJ. I don't see much new and signficant information here. The report was included in a court filing due to Strzok's wrongful termination lawsuit, which he has since dropped. (Oops).
If the Democrats in Congress think they can get to 2/3rds of the Senate on this, they are nuts.
Not even Mueller could credibly argue for obstruction of justice. Contempt of Congress has been laughed off by Democrat presidents before (see Obama, Holder, and Fast and Furious) because it is defeated by executive privilege. And the abuse of power charge is transparent projection to try to defend against Trump revealing what Obama did to him. I mean, seriously: their witness cites the New York Times as his source for Trump's supposedly horrible motivations, rather than any actual conversations with or directions from Trump. And he's a diplomat!
Did Strzok lie in his Special Counsel exit interview?
Undercover Huber makes the case on Twitter. It has to do with the switcheroo over who took notes, who conducted the interview, and who wrote the FD-302. Note also that editing the 302 could also be a serious felony charge depending on the substance of the edits (eg, if it was edited to support a false-statements charge that wasn't supported by the actual interview); this is on top of that exposure.
West Virginia proposal to impose liability on gun-free zones
If you are going to deny someone the ability to protect themselves on your property, you should bear at least some responsibility if they are attacked. Primary responsibility still adheres to the criminal attacker,
Former AG says IG report on FISA will be the most consequential in years
Anyone paying attention is already extremely troubled, but Whitaker is in a position to know better than most. Particularly the comment about "How they do business generally" suggests this will be a wide-ranging report rather than a narrowly focused one.
I don't see how the the Democrats could possibly allow Nellie Ohr or Alexandra Chalupa to testify under oath with Republicans asking the questions. Those two alone would blow SpyGate wide open. The "Whistleblower" (probably Ciaramella) would expose himself as a political hack and likely was also involved in SpyGate. Hunter Biden would expose himself as an ignorant idiot making a living on his dad's political office (and likely expose lots of other politicians doing similar things).
Also the type of storage most associated with ready to use at short notice for self-defense.
This case is about a man whose guns were seized because he was old, allegedly had dementia, allegedly was not storing them safely (not illegally, mind you, just not up to some ninny's idea of safe storage).
Also, he allegedly threatened to shoot anyone who came to his home, or so claimed his family when they reported him to the police. And yet he surrendered his guns to the police "voluntarily" without shooting anyone.
It's my bet some leftist in his family lied to the police.
Ukraine foreign minister said no quid pro quo. This is on top of Trump saying no quid pro, the president of Ukraine saying no quid pro quo, the ambassador saying no quid pro quo (walking back previous testimony that he sourced to the New York Times), and the transcript says no quid pro quo. The only people saying there was one were those three or four people removed from the call where it supposedly happened. And even if there had been one, foreign aid for US policy objectives is entirely legitimate, and investigating admitted Ukrainian government interference in our 2016 election is legitimate, and investigating what seems like admitted corruption with regard to the Biden family is also entirely legitimate.
If I wanted to speculate, I would speculate that someone with a bigger whistle than brain overheard rumors about Trump investigating some of his own activities in Ukraine and decided to blow himself in a bid to protect himself from retaliation, and then in order to support his claim, organized people to make suggestive but baseless text inquiries with the idea that that would provide credibility to the story.
Except, you know, Trump did nothing wrong and released the transcript to prove it.