Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Back to our usual format with three big stories today! Jim and Greg applaud the Senate for passing legislation designed to sanction anyone found targeting the human rights of people in Hong Kong, but they still wish the demonstrators could get some public support from President Trump. They also react to U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland contending that the Trump administration did demand Ukraine open an investigation into Burisma and the 2016 elections in exchange for President Zelensky to receive an invitation to the White House, and that he believes the suspension of military aid was linked to those demands as well. And they marvel at the media deleting a story about the numbers of migrant children in U.S. detention when they learn the figure is actually from the Obama years.
Subscribe to Three Martini Lunch in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
Don’t worry about being called a Trump fanatic. It is obviously not true.
I still can’t see why Trump investigating Biden is a big deal. I know how partisan that sounds but we have a treaty where the President can investigate anyone for corruption. And… the Bidens were corrupt.
Nice Al Gore impression by the way. I love political junkies with long memories.
Indeed. If all you have to do in order to avoid investigation/prosecution is go into politics – where any such attempt could be labeled as simply “political” – that’s a huge problem.
Indeed, I’m often annoyed by Jim’s anti-Trump bias (see current episode).
On the other hand, it enables me to skip all the commercials with a clear conscience!
Since you are stating here that Sondland’s testimony was very damaging, can you explain why Turner’s questioning where Sondland admitted he was not told by anyone that the aid was tied to the money that they were given did not tear apart his testimony. Sorry, this is a real question, I am not glued to the impeachment hearings, but this seemed pretty damaging to Sondland’s testimony to me.
I got exactly the same impression.