It’s the rank dishonesty which gets me

There’s been considerable footage of the hearing in Congress online, of which this is but one:

It’s not necessary, though it confirms it, to be able to access this Twitter video clip – essentially, the witness confirmed Jim Jordan’s and all the other Republican direct questions – JJ asked that if ‘bribery’ is the centre of this whole investigation, why has no witness yet brought in that word?  Also, was there ‘quid pro quo’, apparently a key DemRat point? No witness asserted under oath – yes. When asked would it be wrong had POTUS done that, they asserted -yes.

Yet the Daily Mail comes out with this:

Donald Trump’s EU ambassador tells impeachment probe that President ORDERED him to work with Rudy Giuliani and that ‘everyone’ – including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – knew he was trying to force Ukraine to probe the Bidens

That was the bleedin’ headline for crying out loud.

And it is a lie, in the sense that it takes a call from the bench for an opinion from the witness as a fact, compared to when the Republicans demanded a yes or no, did he or didn’t he?  In a court of law, that would never be admissible.

For the Mail to then run that in isolation [as of last night], and not also what is set out above in this post, is fraudulent in a national news service. In other words – actionable.

But it’s not just the MSM – Twitter has been at it too. Consider this first screenshot of my Twitter timeline [note the time top left, also click pic and click again and again to embiggen] – look at the Lori Hendry tweet:

Were you not to know that Lori Hendry is a key pro-Trump person, then you could be forgiven for thinking she’s agreeing with the DemRats here that there is collusion and obstruction of justice. At the very least, you’d be curious and would click ‘show this thread’ or else you’d just move on, assuming she was agreeing with the DemRats. At a minimum, it is rendered unclear.

But if you do click on ‘show this thread’, then an entirely different picture emerges:

What you have there is an outraged lady lambasting the DemRats but Twitter has cleverly taken its excerpt for the short form to print just the two lines it did.

Now, immediately, some of you, playing devil’s advocate, will say – well that’s just unfortunate of the machine – it takes key words, esp. those trending, and they become the excerpt.

Yes, as a rule, that’s how it works.  But there were other trending words as well which never appear in excerpts. In other words, the editing is being played about with.

Then there is the simple situation that key pro-Trump people such as her and Laura Ingraham and similar are targetted specifically to blunt their message, as is POTUS himself. They are high-reach tweeters and are given special attention by Dorsey.

When I search for Real Donald Trump on Twitter, as distinct from going direct to his site if it’s known, yes, I get a tweet at the top with time signature removed, then a host of negative reactions to him and none of his own tweets anywhere near the top, plus tweets removed by Twitter:

All ‘approved’ Twitter users have the facility of blocking and deleting but DJT does not – he is banned on the platform from blocking negative comments and these comments are what show at the top of his search page for any newbie on Twitter.

Yet he does nothing about it officially.

As for Lori Hendry, right down to li’l ole me – we also get this c**p.  Why do we not leave Twitter and go to Gab or similar?  Answer in my case – I do, but they do not have the scope, the range, the clout worldwide and Twitter know it.

Twitter is goading DJT to make special rules for Deplorables in order to give the DNC something to seize on. This is the level of collusion and obstruction of justice which is really going on.

And over here, they’re playing games with voting cards. Yes, I know that one votes without it but I called for an investigation last time of why I have not been getting these cards and they will not reply.

This time, with no Brexit candidate, the polling card miraculously appeared.  Call it coincidence if you wish.

That’s just one part of it. Where was the card? It was inside one, not behind or between, two pieces of junk mail. It was folded inside a supermarket offer and yes, I did screw up the junk mail cover to put in the bin but thought I’d just check.

Someone had put my polling card inside a piece of junk mail. Think about that.

Similar happened when I was replying to YouGov questions – yes, I was one of the polled – but after they had asked three times whom I would vote for – UKIP at the time – they stopped asking me.  So I left YouGov.

There is zero anyone can do about it and yet there is a GE coming up and the lemmings are going to vote Tory, are they not?  Five more years of the same.

So, as mentioned in the heading at the top here – t’s the rank dishonesty allowed by authorities to exist which gets to me, it really does upset me. The politics is one thing – OK, that’s par for the course – but this is openly public bodies allowing these things to go on and they’re plain wrong.

Yet again – what on earth can we do? Bleat, as I’m doing here?

3 comments for “It’s the rank dishonesty which gets me

  1. November 21, 2019 at 16:08

    Chrysalis with the old “allegedly” again. Yes, it’s always allegedly or I feel that with DemRats:

    “Well, I find it interesting that no “Republican” congressperson has pressed for WHY the OMB withheld aid to the Ukraine (allegedly at Trump’s request), which is central to these hearings – everything else is just grandstanding, on both political sides. If there is plausible reason other than “quid pro quo” withholding that aid, I for one would like to hear it, wouldn’t you?”

    Nope, it’s within the purview of the President – his right, his biz.

  2. Distant Relative
    November 21, 2019 at 17:22

    Worth mentioning this here agreement.

    https://www.congress.gov/106/cdoc/tdoc16/CDOC-106tdoc16.pdf

    Signed off by a Demon-rat and still in force.

  3. November 21, 2019 at 17:58

    This from Mark Meadows:

    “These hearings are one career bureaucrat after another saying (without evidence) they “believed” there was a political quid pro quo – while officials in the room say it never happened, and it didn’t come up once in 6 U.S./Ukraine meetings. This is a monumental waste of time.”

    All the same, Chrysalis’s angle good to see. There’s another one too under the Dazed and Confused post.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.