Jump to content

The Sham Impeachment Inquiry & Whistleblower Saga: A Race to Get Ahead of the OIG


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

Only the out of touch DNC could come up with this idea... what's more boring and off putting for the average American to listen to than a bunch of self aggrandizing bureaucrats?

 

A bunch of self aggrandizing lawyers. 

 

No one will watch this.  

 

Why didn't they just hire CNN to testify?

 

Hell, Noah Feldberg's a Bloomberg opinion columnist.  How many federal election laws and regulations are they breaking with that invitation?

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hedge said:

 

 

 

Noah Feldman: Constitutional "scholar" who specializes in Islamic Legal Studies and admires sharia law.

 

Pamela Karlan: "Voting rights" expert.

 

Michael Gerhardt: Actually seems to have some qualifications to testify. Expert in relationship between Presidents and Congress, including writing treatises on impeachment.

 

Jonathan Turley: TV Liberal pundit.

 

Should be a good schiffshow.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmmm...

 

Giuliani associate asks court to release documents to impeachment inquiry
© Getty

An indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani, President Trump’s personal attorney, wants to give congressional impeachment investigators access to materials that were seized during his arrest earlier this year, his lawyer said Monday at a court hearing. 

A lawyer for Lev Parnas asked a federal court in Manhattan for the materials to be released to the Democratic-led House committees, according to ABC News. The outlet previously reported that lawmakers who are helping to lead the impeachment inquiry into Trump are already in possession of recordings and photographs from Parnas.

The materials were seized when the Soviet-born associate of Giuliani was arrested for allegedly violating campaign finance law. Parnas and another Giuliani associate, Igor Fruman, were arrested on Oct. 9 at Dulles International Airport.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Featured image
 

A sign of the times, that historians one day will puzzle over: Psychiatrists Organize Campaign to Declare Trump ‘Dangerous,’ Back Impeachment. The campaign involves the usual suspects:

Psychiatrists with the World Mental Health Coalition are soliciting signatures in a campaign to support the impeachment of President Donald Trump predicated on claims that he is mentally unstable.

Or, put another way, on the ground that he is a Republican.

In an email forwarded to PJ Media, three psychiatrists with the coalition ask other psychiatrists to sign on to a petition to the House of Representatives Judiciary Committee to include a statement on Trump’s supposed mental instability into the official record of the impeachment inquiry.

Dr. Bandy Lee, a forensic psychiatrist at Yale School of medicine; Dr. Jerrold Post, a psychiatrist and political psychologist who founded the CIA’s Center for Analysis of Personality and Political Behavior; and Dr. John Zinner, a clinical professor in the Psychiatry Department of the George Washington University School of Medicine, wrote the petition and statement condemning Trump.

These Democratic Party activists have been at it for a while, so far without success:

The pro-impeachment statement is one in a long line of psychiatric attacks on Trump, the petition explains. “A group of us first outlined our concerns at a conference at Yale School of Medicine in April 2017, when the majority of the public believed the president was ‘settling in.’ This was followed by a public-service book, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 37 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President, which many say predicted the course of this presidency. Thousands of others joined us to form a professional association known as the World Mental Health Coalition.”

Whatever. These people have never met the president, and have no basis to offer a “diagnosis” of his mental health. I believe they are violating recognized standards in their profession by issuing groundless opinions of this sort.

 

Moreover, they have a hard time keeping their story straight. Is Trump a warmonger, or a Putin stooge who will let Russia rampage over Eastern Europe? Or is he neither, but an America-first president who wants to end long-term conflicts in places like Afghanistan? If Trump is “unstable,” why has he hewed consistently to such a coherent, and successful, set of policy preferences? If he is a threat to the Republic, why has his administration ushered in unprecedented levels of employment and income, and especially benefited minority populations, while maintaining peace abroad?

If these “mental health professionals” were as successful as President Trump, they would have something better to do than carry water for the intellectually bankrupt Democratic Party.

 

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

What a bunch of batschitt crazy idiots.

 

Do they geniunely  believe this will lead to anything other than further belief that the Dems have completely lost their freaking minds? How big of an effin' idiot do you have to be to think, for one moment, that THIS approach is a good idea?

 

Dumber than schitt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, B-Man said:

 

8 hours ago, DC Tom said:

 

That is shockingly irresponsible.

 

8 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Not to mention completely unethical.

 

And in violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, Section 7 (also known as The Goldwater Rule)

 

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

 

But this time it's okay, because #orangemanbad

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:


wait: axios said it was “debunked”. Nothing to see here I guess.  ? 
 

Why it matters: Republicans are using a debunkedconspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election to justify President Trump's decision to freeze congressionally approved aid to the country.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Koko78 said:

 

Oh no! They've really got Trump *THIS* time!!!!111

He's a slippery dick for sure! You guys love this criminal 

38 minutes ago, dubs said:


wait: axios said it was “debunked”. Nothing to see here I guess.  ? 
 

Why it matters: Republicans are using a debunkedconspiracy theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 presidential election to justify President Trump's decision to freeze congressionally approved aid to the country.

Lies within lies..,Ukraine claim is Russian propaganda and the argument Trump held up the aid for

legitamate purposes is just totally dishonest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

He's a slippery dick for sure! You guys love this criminal 

Lies within lies..,Ukraine claim is Russian propaganda and the argument Trump held up the aid for

legitamate purposes is just totally dishonest 

  Slippery dick?  I guess that we all know what is on your mind this morning.  Have fun with your socks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, /dev/null said:

 

 

 

And in violation of the American Psychiatric Association's Principles of Medical Ethics, Section 7 (also known as The Goldwater Rule)

 

On occasion psychiatrists are asked for an opinion about an individual who is in the light of public attention or who has disclosed information about himself/herself through public media. In such circumstances, a psychiatrist may share with the public his or her expertise about psychiatric issues in general. However, it is unethical for a psychiatrist to offer a professional opinion unless he or she has conducted an examination and has been granted proper authorization for such a statement

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldwater_rule

 

But this time it's okay, because #orangemanbad

 

 

Every rule has an exception.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...