"Three House committees have jointly issued a subpoena to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo for documents related to the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
The chairmen of the House Foreign Affairs, Intelligence and Oversight committees set an Oct. 4 deadline for Pompeo to produce the documents, including many that the lawmakers have been seeking for weeks."
"House Democrats on Monday expanded their impeachment inquiry with subpoenas to the Pentagon and Office of Management and Budget tied to the freezing of foreign aid to Ukraine.
The newest subpoenas broaden the House's impeachment investigation into President Donald Trump's interactions with Ukraine into new corners of the federal government. They follow subpoenas that have already been issued to the State Department and White House, as well as the President's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, as Democrats seek to rapidly gather information as they consider whether to impeach the President.
The committees have also requested information from Vice President Mike Pence as part of the probe."
Good try at deflection Koobookie, but like Bailey Guns has pointed out, you often do that so as to not rebut the statement.
So once again, what do you consider a "credible" source? In that you post cnn and time sources are they credible in your mind? Are you satisfied with thehill.com as a source for
Andrew McCarthy's piece as credible?
ramage wrote: You might want to consider changing your search engine, especially if it is google.com.
Also what do you consider a "credible" source"?
Ummm, changing the search engine doesn't change the content of the articles on each of those sources, it would simply change the ranking on those articles in a search result.
You can see what I find is a credible source by looking at what I cite in any post I make. As I've stated before, you have to look at individual journalists, not entire organizations. MSNBC and FOX News have awful pundits and opinion mouthpieces; however, their news desks are decent. The New York Times has compromised journalists (cough Maggie Haberman cough) and publishes some god-awful crap, but still puts out other great content. There is no black-and-white, easy-to-find single source for information. It requires digging, checking a source for bias, and using critical thought about every piece you read, which is why I still rely on print journalism rather than TV.
Now, looking at The Hill article
(which you really should link to in your post to keep us in compliance with Fair Use Guidelines, and not quote more than 10% of the article here), it is listed as an opinion piece. Which is fine, but that puts it in a different category than a sourced article. A search of the title reveals that The Hill isn't the only place it's been published which means source doesn't matter, the author does. The author is Andrew C. McCarthy, who seems to have some credible background, but also questionable biases.
Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is “Ball of Collusion.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
Sorry,
I posted the extensive quote because I wanted to provide it to Koobookie, who was unable to find the article in her search engine. Mea Culpa.
To link to a Lawfare article is interesting and laughable. These are the lawyers representing the "whistleblowers".
With regard to Andrew McCarthy. Your highlight neglected to note that he was the Federal Attorney who argued for the guilt of the blind sheik. Got him convicted for the bombing at the
WTC. Accusing him of prejudice on the basis of your sources is laughable. The source you cited:
" [1] McCarthy previously served as co-chair for the Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD).
McCarthy was an outspoken proponent of the 2016 presidential campaign of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), calling the the senator a “champion of conservative ideals who is probably as able, articulate and bright a champion as we’ve had certainly in recent memory.” In March 2106, Cruz included McCarthy on his campaign’s foreign policy advisory team, called the “National Security Coalition. Others on the team included Frank Gaffney, Michael Ledeen, and Elliott Abrams.[2]
Sorry,
I posted the extensive quote because I wanted to provide it to Koobookie, who was unable to find the article in her search engine. Mea Culpa.
I understand why you did it; however, as explained in our TOS and in multiple posts here on the Forums, a link to the original source (so people reading can easily go read more without having to search, and to give proper attribution to the author) plus a minimum amount of text may be quoted always from articles per Fair use Guidelines otherwise you risk getting us shut down and then no one can participate here.
To link to a Lawfare article is interesting and laughable. These are the lawyers representing the "whistleblowers".
Incorrect. Lawfare Blog is run by Robert Chesney, Jack Goldsmith and Benjamin Wittes, as explained in their About Us.
The whistleblowers are being represented by Mark Zaid and Andrew Bakaj of Compass Rose Legal Group.
With regard to Andrew McCarthy. Your highlight neglected to note that he was the Federal Attorney who argued for the guilt of the blind sheik. Got him convicted for the bombing at the
WTC.
Also incorrect.
He may not have been a Trump supporter during the primary portion of the election, but he certainly seems to be now, and his promotion of conspiracy theories (including that President Obama isn't a citizen) makes his judgement highly suspect.
"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill
ramage wrote: You obviously did not look with any effort.
What do you consider "credible". Andrew McCarthy is the DA that convicted the blind sheik in NYC for the first bombing of the WTC. Do an internet search for his postings.
I do not consider gatewaypundit.com to be a credible source. I did do a search, but when nothing remotely similar came up, I asked the person that posted the assertion to provide more information, or a credible source. You jumped into the fray.
FYI - towermonkey made the assertion. It is their responsibility to back it up. I should not have to research it for them, even though I made the attempt.
Sorry Kabookie, but I’m not arguing a court case. This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. If you don’t want to believe my assertions, that is up to you. I’m not going to go look through what you would call credible news sources for something that clearly doesn’t match their propagandist slant. Your mind is made up and so is mine. What would be the point in wasting all that time?
ramage wrote: You obviously did not look with any effort.
What do you consider "credible". Andrew McCarthy is the DA that convicted the blind sheik in NYC for the first bombing of the WTC. Do an internet search for his postings.
I do not consider gatewaypundit.com to be a credible source. I did do a search, but when nothing remotely similar came up, I asked the person that posted the assertion to provide more information, or a credible source. You jumped into the fray.
FYI - towermonkey made the assertion. It is their responsibility to back it up. I should not have to research it for them, even though I made the attempt.
Sorry Kabookie, but I’m not arguing a court case. This is a discussion forum, not a courtroom. If you don’t want to believe my assertions, that is up to you. I’m not going to go look through what you would call credible news sources for something that clearly doesn’t match their propagandist slant. Your mind is made up and so is mine. What would be the point in wasting all that time?
If I understand you correctly, you are just throwing out suppositions without any proof, hoping that it will somehow sway me to believe you? That's now how debate works. I understand this is not a courtroom, but if you want to intelligently discuss a point, back it up with your sources.
