testifies that he’s making a “personal guess” about a quid pro who. before you slam the source, it’s a vide if him. his guess is good enough for me, by jiminy.

https://video.foxnews.com/v/6106664221001/#sp=show-clips

Again ignoring a lot of very smart people .. who have years of understanding peoples intent..
This excuse since you didn't hear it directly from Trump it didn't happen is just a dishonest excuse...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just a little plausible deniability on Trumps part, and he's not very good at it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZWT5AeFUwE

More Sondland testimony!!

Sondland testified about a conversation with Trump where he asked the president what he wanted from Ukraine.



“And it was a very short, abrupt conversation,” the ambassador said. “He was not in a good mood. And he just said, ‘I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.’ Something to that effect.”

Pow! Right in the kisser!

It's important to note the timing of Trump's "I want nothing..I want no quid pro quo" statement to Sondland: It occurred on September 9, the exact same day the House Intel Committee received the whistleblower's complaint....

You would have let John Gotti off also, no dirty hands for him either.

Sondland with a simple but obvious point: if the meeting wasn’t tied to the investigations then…. They would have just had the meeting.

It is extraordinary to hear the Republican members emphasize the absence of direct evidence for matters for which the President has blocked both testimony and documents from being turned over.

Again ignoring a lot of very smart people .. who have years of understanding peoples intent..
This excuse since you didn't hear it directly from Trump it didn't happen is just a dishonest excuse...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m responding to what the witness explicitly said. We finally have someone who has firsthand knowledge from a conversation that he participated in, rather than hearsay.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again ignoring a lot of very smart people .. who have years of understanding peoples intent..
This excuse since you didn't hear it directly from Trump it didn't happen is just a dishonest excuse...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re not ignoring any smart people? Alan Dershowitz isn’t smart?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You and the Republican members emphasize the absence of direct evidence for matters for which the President has blocked both testimony and documents from being turned over.

I’m betting there is a ton of evidence in the state department records and if no crime why not release it all to clear it all up. Why not give Bolton, Mulvaney or Rudy the green light to testify, oh yeah because while Sondland probably nailed the House impeachment coffin shut, those two would shovel all the dirt on top. Trump wanted to be famous, he might not have dreamed it would be for being one of the few presidents to be impeached. I think when it’s all over, the Clintons will have Trump and Melania over for a pity party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re not ignoring any smart people? Alan Dershowitz isn’t smart?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Is he testifying?

And again were back to no one was told directly From Trump

So it didn't happen

But Rudy did but wont testify. shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sondland asks open ended question and it’s Trump who raises, by denying, quid pro quo. Like a child who blurts out I didn’t eat the cookies when parent didn’t mentions cookies.

Is he testifying?

And again were back to no one was told directly From Trump

So it didn't happen

But Rudy did but wont testify. shocking
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh, limited to people
who are testifying. which smart people who testified, proved that trump ordered a quid pro quo? i missed that.

fine, compel rudy to testify, he’ll probably claim attorney client confidentiality.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sondland asks open ended question and it’s Trump who raises, by denying, quid pro quo. Like a child who blurts out I didn’t eat the cookies when parent didn’t mentions cookies.

so you cannot deny something, without admitting to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m not sure what testimony is watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you cannot deny something, without admitting to it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why did Floridaman immediately respond to Sondland's "what did you want" question w/denial of quid pro quo.

Produce a rational explanation

Produce a rational explanation

He knew he was about to be accused of Quid Pro Quo.... Quick release the aid.... What a coincidence.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I’m not sure what testimony is watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m watching video of
him speaking. maybe you’re simply reading CNN headlines, which actually got demolished in real
time during recent testimony. Rep Mike Turner read a CNN headline which said Sondland connected trump to the quid pro quo, Turner asked Sondland i’d he had any evidence whatsoever that trump ordered it, Sondland said
no, other than his presumption.

that’s the testimony i’m watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i’m watching video of
him speaking. maybe you’re simply reading CNN headlines, which actually got demolished in real
time during recent testimony. Rep Mike Turner read a CNN headline which said Sondland connected trump to the quid pro quo, Turner asked Sondland i’d he had any evidence whatsoever that trump ordered it, Sondland said
no, other than his presumption.

that’s the testimony i’m watching.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Asking a fact witness if a crime was committed or to define one is silly at best but it is good for spinning and that is all they have.

You'd be better off watching Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney with that strong New York Irish cop energy as he gets Sondland to say clearly that the investigations Trump wanted would benefit Trump.

He knew he was about to be accused of Quid Pro Quo.... Quick release the aid.... What a coincidence.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are correct sir :claps:but the base cant follow the time Line

, so Jordon presents it as somehow Trump never wanted anything by saying see he said so clearly but leaving out the call was days after they were aware of the whistleblower complaint they tried to bury

. just like read the transcript which clearly lays out Trumps intent

Jim Jordan: “Do you know what a quid pro quo is?”

Guy appointed as an ambassador after donating $1M to Trump’s inauguration: “I do.”

the democrat desperation is deep:kewl:

Asking a fact witness if a crime was committed or to define one is silly at best but it is good for spinning and that is all they have.

You'd be better off watching Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney with that strong New York Irish cop energy as he gets Sondland to say clearly that the investigations Trump wanted would benefit Trump.

it’s silly to ask someone who spoke to trump directly, if he requested a quid pro quo. but it’s not silly to overturn a national election because someone heard something from someone else about what might have happened.

The democrats didn’t want to impeach Clinton, and we literally had DNA evidence that he lied under oath.

the bar has been lowered, it seems.

and you’re so unbiased, you’ve stated you’ve already dismissed the Durham investigation as a partisan sham, even though it hasn’t been released.

you notice any trends in how your conclusions always, with zero exceptions, align with a certain political ideology?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment does not overturn an election
It is the constitutional remedy for a President who has abused his power as Floridaman has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Impeachment does not overturn an election
It is the constitutional remedy for a President who has abused his power as Floridaman has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No matter how much you wish for it Jim, Hillary will not be President
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thats a coup.

All Trump had to do to was avoid the situation
He finds himself in.. by

AKA acting like a Potus .. rather than a runaway train who thinks hes untouchable and cant be held accountable ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

or it can be used to undo an election when you just can’t accept the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So you are ok with a sitting president abusing their power at the expense of our national security?

Sure sounds like it.

Do you have any talking points that haven’t been contradicted with testimony under oath?

You do know Nunes Is giving the house republicans nothing right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why did Floridaman immediately respond to Sondland's "what did you want" question w/denial of quid pro quo.

Produce a rational explanation

It was a whopping one hour after Congress announced they were going to investigate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He knew he was about to be accused of Quid Pro Quo.... Quick release the aid.... What a coincidence.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If asked what I want from the Ukraine I probably would have said either borscht or chicken Kiev.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you are ok with a sitting president abusing their power at the expense of our national security?

Sure sounds like it.

Do you have any talking points that haven’t been contradicted with testimony under oath?

You do know Nunes Is giving the house republicans nothing right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if a sitting VP can use withheld aid as leverage to get what he wants, i don’t see why it’s an “abuse of power” for a president that do the same. Certainly it’s within the scope if the chief executive to ascertain the truth about what americans ( even
democrats) are doing.

i also don’t think you overturn a duly elected president, over hearsay and “presumptions”. that’s not even circumstantial evidence, which is at least evidence. as of this moment, hearsay and presumptions is all we have.

Why did Sondland read a 23-page opening statement which didn’t include the words “by the way, this is all presumption, i have zero direct evidence connecting Trump to this.”? Answer, because this isn’t about facts, it’s about getting rid of a president they hate. gimme an alternative reason for excluding such a key fact from
a 23 page opening statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The strange phenomena is watching the approval ratings and popularity steadily climbing. Hard to explain,but true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The strange phenomena is watching the approval ratings and popularity steadily climbing. Hard to explain,but true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It’s easy to explain because it’s not true. You are hard to explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's a little sad to watch all of these deranged democrats crawling on their bellies through the parched desert of their trump hatred spotting mirages everywhere

It’s easy to explain because it’s not true. You are hard to explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

THE HILL
Trump approval ticks up amid impeachment battle: Gallup
BY JUSTINE COLEMAN - 11/20/19 10:48 AM EST

It’s easy to explain because it’s not true. You are hard to explain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Proving once again that you believe only what you want to believe.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why did Sondland read a 23-page opening statement which didn’t include the words “by the way, this is all presumption, i have zero direct evidence connecting Trump to this.”? gimme an alternative reason for excluding such a key fact from
a 23 page opening statement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because as any lawyer can tell you, direct evidence is not required to prove the crime.
In this case you likely won’t get it unless Colludy flips, it’s pretty apparent the definition of the ask was his job. Everybody else was supposed to stay in line and move the agenda.
That’s the way “Drug Deals” work.
Fiona will explain it again today, but you’ll claim there Isn’t evidence that is not required.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no crime

No, Trump just told them to hold the aid and wouldn't agree to a WH meeting, Mulvaney told OMB to hold the aid on order of Trump, Trump asks Zelensky for investigation right after he put hold on aid... aid was not released until after all this becomes public.
That’s all, folks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because as any lawyer can tell you, direct evidence is not required to prove the crime.
In this case you likely won’t get it unless Colludy flips, it’s pretty apparent the definition of the ask was his job. Everybody else was supposed to stay in line and move the agenda.
That’s the way “Drug Deals” work.
Fiona will explain it again today, but you’ll claim there Isn’t evidence that is not required.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there is no crime

nope. not until we hear what Durham has to say about FISA abuses, that is. But all the libs here, as testament to their
non partisanship and dedication to getting the truth, have already concluded that the investigation is a nothing burger, despite the fact that nothing has been released yet. but somehow they already know.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, Trump just told them to hold the aid and wouldn't agree to a WH meeting, Mulvaney told OMB to hold the aid on order of Trump, Trump asks Zelensky for investigation right after he put hold on aid... aid was not released until after all this becomes public.
That’s all, folks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if all that is true, and that’s still
an if, where is the crime?

Again, there is
no evidence that it’s true, except hearsay and presumption. As of
now, that’s all there is. The only direct testimony has come
from two guys on the call, and one who had a subsequent conversation with Trump, all denying any direction of a quid pro quo.

if that’s where the bar is set for proving something, will
you keep the bar that low
when the IG report and
the Durham reports come
out about DOJ abuse during the obama administration? will you be his easily persuaded by accusations no evidence? we shall see.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

try to pay attention...there was a meeting, aid and movement without trump getting a public statement on investigation

You three amigos crack me up, with all these testimonies confirming there would be no meeting, no aid and no movement without Trump getting his public statement on investigation being opened into 2016, Barisma and by association the Bidens.

Each talking point the GOP has had is slowly being crushed in testimony. Sondland was going to be their guy and he turned out to be killer for proving there was a QPQ and the scope of involvement. All about corruption, yet in May it was determined by the proper methods and agencies, the Ukraine government had done all needed to clear the aid. Wait there was no pressure, Ukraine didn’t know the aid was being held, oh crap Cooper and others prove oh yes they did know.

He will be impeached in the house, with all this debate, are any of you three amigos suggesting he won’t be impeached? Maybe time to move on to what should happen in the senate and in 2020.

You can see the desperation in the questions by the republicans, especially in the public comments by Trump and here in the futile attempt to say no crime. Just such a stretch to say because Trump didn’t get his public statement and investigations, that nothing was wrong and he didn’t abuse his power. A failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what evidence are we denying? who “confirmed” anything?

two guys on the call, said the aid wasn’t contingent on an investigation.

Yesterday, we heard from a guy who trump specifically told he didn’t want a quid pro quo.

all claims trump directed the quid pro quo, are hearsay and presumption. that is fact.

as i said, if i had to bet, i’d bet trump did it. but do we overturn a fair presidential election based on jersey and presumption? and again, even if he did it, biden did the same thing. no one cared. biden bragged about it on tv. why is it so awful for the executive branch to use leverage to get a foreign power to discover the truth about what americans might be doing there?

you guys are very dedicated to get facts related to trumps corruption, but have zero interest in finding out the truth about what biden may have done. if that’s not based on partisanship, what is it?

he’ll probably be impeached in the house, no way he gets convicted in the senate. it may hurt his chances of re election, it may be a big boost. for sure it’s helping his fund raising.

republican questions show desperation? ok. it’s an act of desperation to ask, “what evidence do you have, that the alleged act ever took place?”.

if say that’s a fair, obvious question. one that democrats are avoiding asking. why do you suppose that is?

“ a failed bank robbery doesn’t mean the robber goes free.”

To incarcerate the robber, you need
a whole lot more than someone saying, that he heard from someone else, that the suspect robbed the bank.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers and certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally and NOT when the end game is interference in our elections, that is what this is about. If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels, but in true Trump fashion, he knows better and of course he eats conspiracy theories for breakfast.

i thought it wasn’t a criminal proceeding, but a fact finding inquiry? The FACT is that the only direct evidence Sondland has, is that trump specifically said he didn’t want a quid pro quo ( which WDMSO has concluded is evidence that he ordered a quid
pro quo). everything else, as he said explicitly, is his “presumption”, which isn’t a fact.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

democrats are just like the woman screaming at the white cat

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why do you keep saying there’s no direct evidence
The crime of bribery is committed on the ask.
Try explaining to a judge that you didn’t commit a crime because the cop didn’t take the money
The shoebomber shouldn’t be in jail because the bomb didn’t go off
Circumstantial evidence is admissible and Floridaman asked in the memo, Mulvaney admitted it on TV, Rudy tweeted it
Just how much do you need?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i keep saying there’s no direct evidence, because there is none.

and if what trump allegedly did is bribery, why isn’t biden also accused of bribery?

the shoe bomber was caught with the bomb in his shoe. he wasn’t convicted because someone testified that they overheard someone else say he was a shoe bomber.

Is that going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

there’s also that...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i keep saying there’s no direct evidence, because there is none.

and if what trump allegedly did is bribery, why isn’t biden also accused of bribery?

the shoe bomber was caught with the bomb in his shoe. he wasn’t convicted because someone testified that they overheard someone else say he was a shoe bomber.

Is that going too fast for you?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Floridaman said it in the memo and admitted it in public
Mulvaney admitted it in public
Colludy texted it and said it in an interview
Floridaman exhibited it in his call to Sondland by saying no quid pro quo, unsolicited, that’s not part of his limited vocabulary and it’s admissible
Do me a favor and think about it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is coming from the same camp that insists illegal aliens are not criminals.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes to enter the country is illegal it is also a misdemeanor. oh the horror

Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government. He can say there was no quid pro quo..on a phone call days after the whistleblowers complaint . (convenient ) After all the info and his own white House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that Mr. Trump was indeed offering a quid pro quo during that July 25 call, but dismissed the controversy and said people needed to “get over it.”

From Trumps mouth
I would like you to do us a favor and

Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son

Or Giuliani’s public comments — like when he acknowledged in May that some might find his efforts to make Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals “improper” —
To see one only needs to open ones EYES
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers and certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally and NOT when the end game is interference in our elections, that is what this is about. If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels, but in true Trump fashion, he knows better and of course he eats conspiracy theories for breakfast.

"Investigations into American citizens are NOT done by foreign powers"

The hell they aren't, if the citizen is doing something fishy in another country. You're saying Ukraine has no sovereign authority to see if American citizens are breaking Ukraine laws while in Ukraine? Remember when Bill Clinton was president, some spoiled brat American teenager was living in Saudi Arabia (?), got caught vandalizing cars with spray paint. Saudi law calls for caning as punishment. Clinton looked into it, a lot of people wanted Clinton to intervene, he didn't (good for him), the kid was caned. But Clinton absolutely asked the Saudi government to let him know exactly what they discovered that this kid was doing.

"certainly NOT to benefit POTUS personally"

Nonsense, much of what Presidents (all politicians ) do, is done to help them get re elected.

"If Trump felt an investigation was warranted there are proper channels"

Please, please cite the rule or law which says that Trump asking the Ukranian president, isn't the proper way to do it.

Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government. He can say there was no quid pro quo..on a phone call days after the whistleblowers complaint . (convenient ) After all the info and his own white House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that Mr. Trump was indeed offering a quid pro quo during that July 25 call, but dismissed the controversy and said people needed to “get over it.”

From Trumps mouth
I would like you to do us a favor and

Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son

Or Giuliani’s public comments — like when he acknowledged in May that some might find his efforts to make Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals “improper” —
To see one only needs to open ones EYES
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government"

How do you know, without an investigation, that there wasn't actual wrongdoing? If an investigation uncovered actual corruption, is that "dirt"? Or is it "truth"? You are awfully afraid of seeking the truth on this issue.

"He can say there was no quid pro quo"

It's not just him saying it. Every single witness who has firsthand knowledge, denied it. Every. Single. One. Zero exceptions.

Again, you're saying the offense was the quid pro quo. Right? How did Biden not engage in quid pro quo? Yes, Trump wanted a political opponent looked at, and Biden wanted a crook fired. But both times (assuming Trump demanded quid pro quo), Biden/Trump used the leverage of a quid pro quo to get what they wanted. But it's only an issue when Orange Man does it. If he did it, an allegation for which there is precisely zero evidence.

Will it be acceptable for the democratic candidate to say Russia/Turkey/Saudi Arabia announce an investigation of Trump, you will be rewarded
Is that how our elections will work now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Will it be acceptable for the democratic candidate to say Russia/Turkey/Saudi Arabia announce an investigation of Trump, you will be rewarded
Is that how our elections will work now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem with a good faith investigation of Trump, and I can live with the results either way. My existence doesn't depend on securing one outcome. You guys cannot handle anything which doesn't serve your agenda.

Pete, there's evidence of fishy nepotism on the part of the Bidens. I'd like to find out the truth, none of you have any interest in learning the truth. What does that tell you?

Your side started working on impeachment, literally, on day one. Is that how elections work now?

Just to be clear, I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989.
And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected.
You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt, but Floridaman repeatedly lied to the American people about having no business interests in Russia, again and again.
Nothing to see there?
You should go watch Fiona rip Nunes and Gym new #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just to be clear, I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989.
And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected.
You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt, but Floridaman repeatedly lied to the American people about having no business interests in Russia, again and again.
Nothing to see there?
You should go watch Fiona rip Nunes and Gym new #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989."

Good for you.

"And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected."

And he deserves criticism for that. He also stopped the birther baloney as soon as Obama released the most official birth certificate. But it was all garbage, the entire birther movement, embarassing garbage.

'You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt'

I repeatedly said let's do the investigation, and abide by the results (no indictment, no chargeable crime). Your side wanted the investigation, refused to accept the conclusions.

Pete, if I said that all you do is defend liberals and criticize Republicans, can you offer anything to dispute that?

"I said Floridaman is a con man starting in 1989."

Good for you.

"And Floridaman started the birther baloney as soon as Obama was elected."

And he deserves criticism for that. He also stopped the birther baloney as soon as Obama released the most official birth certificate. But it was all garbage, the entire birther movement, embarassing garbage.

'You and the rest of the Trumplicans claim that the Mueller investigation was a witch-hunt'

I repeatedly said let's do the investigation, and abide by the results (no indictment, no chargeable crime). Your side wanted the investigation, refused to accept the conclusions.

Pete, if I said that all you do is defend liberals and criticize Republicans, can you offer anything to dispute that?

You are wrong
I defend people Floridaman and Trumplicans attack falsely and respond in kind.

Here's the big tell that the Hunter Biden stuff is bs. The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have. They certainly didn't shy away from stoking scandals. And yet they didn't. But now they do, silly boys
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are wrong
I defend people Floridaman and Trumplicans attack falsely and respond in kind.

Here's the big tell that the Hunter Biden stuff is bs. The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have. They certainly didn't shy away from stoking scandals. And yet they didn't. But now they do, silly boys
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Any recent examples of you saying a Republican was on the right side and a democrat was on the wrong side?

"The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have"

Trump wasn't POTUS. Just because he was the first to ask for the investigation, doesn't necessarily mean the request fir the investigation wasn't legitimate. Maybe the Republicans in Congress are to blame for not asking.

You are assuming (proving my earlier point of bias), that the fact that Trump was the first one to ask for an investigation, means it was a sham.

That makes zero sense. Do the investigation. If it shows that Biden did nothing wrong, then Trump deserves blame for wasting our time. So what are you afraid of? How is that unfair? It's not unfair. But it doesn't serve your narrative, which is all that matters. Nothing else matters. Your every post shows that.

so you would have no problem if tonight you police chief announces an investigation into your pedophilia?

Any recent examples of you saying a Republican was on the right side and a democrat was on the wrong side?

"The GOP had control of both houses of Congress back in 2015 and spent ZERO TIME on oversight of Burisma, etc. They could have"

Trump wasn't POTUS. Just because he was the first to ask for the investigation, doesn't necessarily mean the request fir the investigation wasn't legitimate. Maybe the Republicans in Congress are to blame for not asking.

You are assuming (proving my earlier point of bias), that the fact that Trump was the first one to ask for an investigation, means it was a sham.

That makes zero sense. Do the investigation. If it shows that Biden did nothing wrong, then Trump deserves blame for wasting our time. So what are you afraid of? How is that unfair? It's not unfair. But it doesn't serve your narrative, which is all that matters. Nothing else matters. Your every post shows that.

John Solomon’s writing on the Biden’s has been amply disproved and there is no predicate for the investigation.
Here’s a few big questions about Solomon and his involvement with Russian oligarchs and their underlings.
1. Did you ever take money or benefit, directly or indirectly, from Dmitry Firtash? Did DiGenova and Toensing introduce you to Firtash to serve as your source? Was it before they formally became his attorneys? To whom and how much did Firtash pay to generate and circulate the disinformation that you published?

2. How much did you pay Parnas? Was it your own money? Whose money was it? Was your employment or use of Parnas arranged by DiGenova and Toensing? Explain the involvement of your attorneys in the full range of your transactions with Parnas.

3. When did you hire DiGenova and Toensing as your attorneys and for what matters? How much have you paid them, over how long a period of time and for which specific services?

4. How many articles have you written that included information provided from sources you knew to be clients of your lawyers, DiGenova and Toensing? On what topics?

You probably should worry about this, it’s pretty closely tied to a number of Trumplicans.
Lev Parnas set up meetings and calls for Nunes and his aide Derek Harvey to help with their investigative work, per Parnas's lawyer
The Russian ties run deep into Trumplicans
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

John Solomon’s writing on the Biden’s has been amply disproved

That's not true.

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2019/nov/19/who-john-solomon-heres-what-we-know-about-journali/

Who is John Solomon? Here’s what we know about the journalist whose stories shaped the Ukraine saga

By Bill McCarthy on Tuesday, November 19th, 2019 at 6:39 p.m.
Top diplomats have repeatedly linked President Donald Trump’s posture toward Ukraine to John Solomon, the journalist whose reports gave false credence to a number of Ukraine-related conspiracies that have found a receptive audience in Trump and some of his closest allies.

Solomon, 52, had been working until recently as an opinion writer at The Hill and is now a Fox News contributor. His columns were cited three times in the whistleblower complaint that helped spur House Democrats to open their impeachment investigation into Trump.

They’ve remained a focal point as the House investigates whether the Trump administration withheld military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to publicly commit to an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and the 2016 election.

On Nov. 19, House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., opened the second week of public impeachment hearings by citing Solomon’s scoops and findings as fact.

"Solomon’s reporting on Burisma, Hunter Biden and Ukraine election meddling has become inconvenient for the Democratic narrative," Nunes said in his statement, which came just one day after The Hill announced it would be reviewing, annotating and correcting Solomon’s columns.

So, who is John Solomon? The veteran Washington, D.C., reporter has become a regular on Fox News and a go-to source of information for Trump. A series of springtime articles he published about Ukraine helped kickstart the events at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

His columns alleged corruption by Biden and a former ambassador and accused Democrats of working with Ukraine to hurt Trump’s chances in 2016. They gained traction as Trump, his allies and various Fox News hosts talked about them on TV and social media.

Solomon did not respond to requests for comment sent to his Facebook page and personal lawyer. Fox News also did not respond to requests for comment.

Solomon worked for years at the Associated Press and briefly at the Washington Post before moving to the Washington Times, where he was editor in chief. He later spent time at Circa and the Center for Public Integrity before joining The Hill in 2017.

Solomon won an award in 2002 for a series on what law enforcement knew ahead of the Sept. 11 attacks. But media critics also questioned his early work, saying he had a "history of bending the truth to his storyline" and "massaging facts to conjure phantom scandals."

Solomon’s commentary for The Hill has generated the most buzz. In 2017, he played a major role in pushing the inaccurate Uranium One conspiracy, alleging that Hillary Clinton sold a share of America’s uranium to Russia in exchange for a massive donation to the Clinton Foundation.

RELATED FACT-CHECK: Exaggerated post connects Clintons, Russia, uranium deal

In 2018, The Hill began labeling Solomon’s articles as opinion. Then, in March and April 2019, Solomon published a series of columns alleging conspiracies involving Democrats and Ukraine.

One of his key sources, apparently, was former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer.

According to the New York Times, Giuliani, whose activities were central to the administration’s efforts to get an investigation launched into Trump’s political rivals, gave Solomon a cache of information on Biden, his son Hunter and special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe.

"I really turned my stuff over to John Solomon," Giuliani told the New York Times.

When Fiona Hill, Trump’s former top Russia expert, was asked during private testimony how she first learned about Giuliani’s "interest" in Ukraine, she mentioned Solomon, whose columns outlined the same conspiracies that Giuliani was actively pushing on Twitter and TV.

Senior State Department official George Kent later testified that what he had described as the "campaign of slander" against former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch began with one of Solomon’s articles and ended with Yovanovitch’s removal.

And Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, director for European Affairs at the National Security Council, said he became concerned about Giuliani and the narratives he was pushing in part because of Solomon’s columns. State Department official Catherine Croft said the same.

Solomon’s methods have been further scrutinized since the impeachment inquiry began. In March, he shared an advance copy of a column with Giuliani’s associates, including recently indicted Ukrainian businessman Lev Parnas, who has reportedly helped connect him to sources.

Solomon left The Hill in September for undisclosed reasons, and Fox News soon hired him. He has stood by his work as "completely accurate and transparent," even as one impeachment witness after another has questioned his findings.

Solomon’s allegations on Yovanovitch, Biden

Solomon’s opinion articles on Ukraine have advanced a number of unsupported allegations about Yovanovitch, the Bidens and supposed Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.

He has had an assist from Fox News host Sean Hannity, Giuliani and Trump, who tweeted about Solomon’s work four times and recently suggested he should win a Pulitzer Prize.

Solomon has appeared on Hannity’s primetime TV show at least 55 times since March 20, according to our search via Nexis. He has been mentioned many more times, as well.

On March 20, Solomon went on Hannity’s show to promote a column he had published that day based on an interview he conducted with Yuriy Lutsenko, then the top prosecutor in Ukraine.

The column quoted Lutsenko falsely claiming that Yovanovitch gave him a list of people he should not prosecute, a charge the State Department denied and Lutsenko has since retracted. The column also claimed Yovanovitch had privately bad-mouthed Trump, citing a letter from former Rep. Pete Sessions, a Texas Republican, to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Yovanovitch denied both allegations during her testimony.

But the allegations had already left their mark, having been promoted on Hannity and other Fox News programs, circulated within right-wing media and tweeted out by Trump and his oldest son, Donald Trump Jr. Yovanovitch was abruptly recalled from her post in May.

Other impeachment witnesses have criticized Solomon’s writing on Yovanovitch. Kent testified that Solomon’s article "was, if not entirely made up in full cloth, it was primarily non-truths and non-sequiturs." He later said he had "every reason to believe it was not true."

Vindman said all the "key elements were false," noting that Solomon’s columns "smelled really rotten" before joking, "His grammar might have been right."

Similar objections have been raised in testimony about two articles Solomon published about Biden in April, which were also referenced in the whistleblower’s complaint.

Solomon’s April columns asserted that then-Vice President Biden forced Ukraine to fire former prosecutor general Viktor Shokin in order to stop an investigation into Burisma Holdings, a gas company for which Hunter Biden served on the board. Solomon wrote that Biden withheld aid dollars from Ukraine as leverage to get Shokin removed.

There’s no evidence of wrongdoing by either Biden, as we’ve noted before. It’s not clear that the long-dormant investigation into Burisma had been reopened, as Solomon claimed, and Western leaders and institutions were united in wanting Shokin removed.

RELATED FACT-CHECK: Donald Trump ad misleads about Joe Biden, Ukraine and the prosecutor

In his closed-door deposition, Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special envoy to Ukraine, said he believed Lutsenko — a key but questionable source in many of Solomon’s columns — was "making things up." He said Biden "was representing U.S. policy at the time."

"The allegations themselves, including those against Ambassador Yovanovitch, did not appear to me to be credible at all," Volker said during public testimony Nov. 19. "I’ve known Vice President Biden for a long time. Those accusations were not credible."

Solomon’s columns also alleged misconduct in Ukraine by Democratic donor George

Soros and claimed, without much evidence, that Democrats coordinated with Ukrainian officials to interfere in the 2016 election by sharing dirt on Trump and reviving a 2014 investigation into former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, who had ties to the country’s old, pro-Russia regime.

These claims are unproven, and the U.S. intelligence community has concluded that it was Russia — not Ukraine — that interfered in the 2016 election, with the intent of helping Trump.

so you would have no problem if tonight you police chief announces an investigation into your pedophilia?

If there's some evidence? Heck no. If a revolving door of little kids had been seen leaving my home crying, then hell no.

You really have me on the ropes...

I don't know who John Solomon is. I know that Hunter Biden, while his dad was THE administration's point person on Ukraine, got a very lucrative job in Ukraine. There's a lot of countries out there, but it had to be Ukraine where Hunter got on the board?

Again, if they did nothing wrong, no one has any reason to fear an investigation.

I don't know who John Solomon is. I know that Hunter Biden, while his dad was THE administration's point person on Ukraine, got a very lucrative job in Ukraine. There's a lot of countries out there, but it had to be Ukraine where Hunter got on the board?

Again, if they did nothing wrong, no one has any reason to fear an investigation.

So Americas should allow anyone to conduct an investigation if they have nothing to fear...

Wow to bad you dont apply that to Trump Bolton rudy mulvaney perry ... shocking

So Americas should allow anyone to conduct an investigation if they have nothing to fear...

Wow to bad you dont apply that to Trump Bolton rudy mulvaney perry ... shocking

if there’s evidence that something occurred. that’s how it works.

huh? i’ve always said let’s investigate trump. i also say, let’s live with the results. you and your ilk want the investigations, but can’t bear to live with the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know who John Solomon is. I know that Hunter Biden, while his dad was THE administration's point person on Ukraine, got a very lucrative job in Ukraine. There's a lot of countries out there, but it had to be Ukraine where Hunter got on the board?

Again, if they did nothing wrong, no one has any reason to fear an investigation.

Obviously you then just recite talking points as assigned and do not look under the hood

Meanwhile Fiona is ripping Nunes and Castor apart and exposing them as the puppets they are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile Fiona is ripping Nunes and Castor apart and exposing them as the puppets they are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe. There are plenty of Republican puppets. Just as you're a liberal puppet.

Sondland read a 23-page opening statement. 23 pages. And nowhere did he bother to include the fact that the only direct evidence he had, was Trump explicitly saying he didn't want a quid pro quo. That wasn't worth mention, ANYWHERE, in a 23-page statement? That doesn't show what a circus this is?

Just have the vote. 95% of the house has their minds made up.

Hill told Sondland she was frustrated he wasn’t looping in the NSC on his Ukraine efforts.

He replied: “But I’m briefing the president. I’m briefing chief of staff Mulvaney. I'm briefing Secretary Pompeo. And I’ve talked to Ambassador Bolton. Who else do I have to deal with?"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if there’s evidence that something occurred. that’s how it works.

huh? i’ve always said let’s investigate trump. i also say, let’s live with the results. you and your ilk want the investigations, but can’t bear to live with the results.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

wheres the evidence of Biden wrong doing

wheres the evidence of Biden wrong doing

you’re right, sheep. there’s none. it’s a coincidence that of all the countries in the world, Hunter made a fortune in the country when his dad was the oval offices point man on that country. purely coincidental.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If there's some evidence? Heck no. If a revolving door of little kids had been seen leaving my home crying, then hell no.

You really have me on the ropes...

So then tell me why J. Biden should be investigated since multiple govern. dept. have said that there is no evidence he did anything corrupt?

you’re right, sheep. there’s none. it’s a coincidence that of all the countries in the world, Hunter made a fortune in the country when his dad was the oval offices point man on that country. purely coincidental.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you have no evidence other than J. Biden's son made a fortune and yet you think it is ok for the Pres. of the US to ask a foreign country to make a public announcement there are investigating J. Biden.

Sounds sleazy as hell.

Sheep? - you should look in the mirror instead of insulting people.

still nothing impeachable...what a joke

So you have no evidence other than J. Biden's son made a fortune and yet you think it is ok for the Pres. of the US to ask a foreign country to make a public announcement there are investigating J. Biden.

Sounds sleazy as hell.

Sheep? - you should look in the mirror instead of insulting people.

yes sheep. i disagree with republicans and trump
all the time. what’s the biggest issue in which you disagree with liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

still nothing impeachable...what a joke

Were you watching Sesame Street and not Hill’s testimony, you keep those talking points going, he will be impeached.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Were you watching Sesame Street and not Hill’s testimony, you keep those talking points going, he will be impeached.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that's what the muppets keep saying

so you would have no problem if tonight you police chief announces an investigation into your pedophilia?

so you would have no problem if tonight you police chief announces an investigation into your pedophilia?

so you would have no problem if tonight you police chief announces an investigation into your pedophilia?



Originally Posted by PaulS View Post ..... you should look in the mirror instead of insulting people.

Were you watching Sesame Street and not Hill’s testimony, you keep those talking points going, he will be impeached.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i saw in her opening statement, she claimed that republicans deny ukrainian meddling in the election. It’s not true, they waved a gop
report in her face that confirmed election meddling. so what else is she lying about?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep the faith, your liar and chief will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep the faith, your liar and chief will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t get it. i’m the opposite of
an ideologue, i’m not
blinded by what i’m rooting for. Just watching what happens. Look at Trumps fundraising. if you’re comfortable that the progressive candidates ( and other then biden, that’s all that’s left) will resonate in middle America, that’s your right.

last week, another right wing trumplican warned that the field
of democratic candidates would
do well to come back to the middle, that they were too far to the left for most americans. His name was Barack Obama. But you know
better.

from where i sit, the democrats look like they’re trying to get him re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes sheep. i disagree with republicans and trump
all the time. what’s the biggest issue in which you disagree with liberals?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Immigration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by PaulS View Post ..... you should look in the mirror instead of insulting people.

So you didn't post the part where I said not that I believe you are a pedophile. Wow that is scummy of you
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you don’t get it. i’m the opposite of
an ideologue, i’m not
blinded by what i’m rooting for. Just watching what happens. Look at Trumps fundraising. if you’re comfortable that the progressive candidates ( and other then biden, that’s all that’s left) will resonate in middle America, that’s your right.

last week, another right wing trumplican warned that the field
of democratic candidates would
do well to come back to the middle, that they were too far to the left for most americans. His name was Barack Obama. But you know
better.

from where i sit, the democrats look like they’re trying to get him re elected.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t suggest the Democrats don’t need to put somebody who can win, I suggested even with who probably will win run against Trump, he can’t afford to lose a single vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I didn’t suggest the Democrats don’t need to put somebody who can win, I suggested even with who probably will win run against Trump, he can’t afford to lose a single vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sure he can, if the democrat nominee gets fewer votes, at least in swing states, than hilary did. a few of them may be less attractive than she was. No?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re right, sheep. there’s none. it’s a coincidence that of all the countries in the world, Hunter made a fortune in the country when his dad was the oval offices point man on that country. purely coincidental.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So biden makes money it a crime. Trump makes money been bankrupt fake university.. hes legit

Both having fathers of influence..

PS Coincidence isnt evidence. Try harder
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2016 was influenced by Russia, by our own FBI announcement just ahead of the elections and then there is the hated Hillary; that perfect storm isn’t likely to happen again. Keep the faith, yes he will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

2016 was influenced by Russia, by our own FBI announcement just ahead of the elections and then there is the hated Hillary; that perfect storm isn’t likely to happen again. Keep the faith, yes he will need every vote.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

russia had a meaningful
impact? the evidence if that, is...??

2016 was also impacted by the people being fed up
with the media being in the tank for the democrats. that feeling is more pervasive now, for good reason.

I think there’s a good chance the nominee is less like able than Hilary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i agree he’s divisive in certain circles. he’s also beloved in other circles.

i’m not saying i’m
certain he’s going to win. but i think there’s a good chance the democrats and the media are helping him, by completely failing to understand what happened in 2016.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s list the groups he has alienated and then how do you keep them all away from the polls?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i respect your opinion. but i disagree.

i don’t think non stop attacks
of trump ( some of which, not all of which, were baseless), non stop insults of his base, and nominating someone way to the left of
obama ( embracing 9th month abortions, open borders, reparations, green new deals) is the correct response to their loss in 2016. the positions these candidates are embracing, lead me
to conclude they have no idea what happened in 2016, that they have no idea that not everyone is exactly like those in Hollywood or
the Upper West Side. 9th month abortions won't play well in NC.

remember, increasing democrat turnout in CA, NY, and IL, does
nothing, because trump can’t win there anyway. winning those states by a larger margin, has no electoral benefit to democrats.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Politics aside the fate of our planet can be dramatically impacted with short sighted vision, our children’s children deserve a better future and IT IS NOT tied to how good our economy or stock market is doing. This clown doesn’t even believe in science, for him it’s all about fame and fortune, he will set us back in ways we can’t even imagine. Vote the Trump brand if that is what you believe works for our collective future, I believe he is a cancer and needs to be removed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Politics aside the fate of our planet can be dramatically impacted with short sighted vision, our children’s children deserve a better future and IT IS NOT tied to how good our economy or stock market is doing. This clown doesn’t even believe in science, for him it’s all about fame and fortune, he will set us back in ways we can’t even imagine. Vote the Trump brand if that is what you believe works for our collective future, I believe he is a cancer and needs to be removed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) i completely disagree that the quality ilife my kids can lead, isnt at all impacted by the stock market. my kids will inherit a lot of
money someday thanks to the market, will have more choices about what colleges to go
to.

(2) there’s a lot more to the economy than the stock
market. unemployment is way down. it doesn’t help
kids when their parents are working and wages are rising?

(3) i’m on board with ensuring healthy ecosystems. but it needs to be studied more before we ask developing countries to stop buying cars and heated homes, things that americans have enjoyed for decades.

(4) there’s more to science than being a climate fanatic. Trump is totally on board with the science of
ultrasounds, and what’s
there. another thing that helps
kids have a better future, is not being slaughtered in the womb. can’t have much if
you arent allowed to be born.

i would never have voted for
trump in a republican primary. i’m convinced he’s a million times
better than anyone currently running as a democrat. i care about economic growth, protecting the unborn, killing terrorists, securing the borders, advocating for less government and more individual liberty. Looking though that lense he is far from perfect, but far superior to the democratic freak show.

The Bill Clinton presidency taught me ( democrat’s taught me this, kind of ironic) that a president’s personal moral compass isn’t as important as the policies he implements. That’s what liberals
said from 1993-2000. They may have all changed their tune since then, but i agree with them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes to enter the country is illegal it is also a misdemeanor. oh the horror

Yet Trump can ask for dirt from a foreign government. He can say there was no quid pro quo..on a phone call days after the whistleblowers complaint . (convenient ) After all the info and his own white House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, confirmed that Mr. Trump was indeed offering a quid pro quo during that July 25 call, but dismissed the controversy and said people needed to “get over it.”

From Trumps mouth
I would like you to do us a favor and

Trump asked Zelenskiy to work with Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr to look into Biden and his son

Or Giuliani’s public comments — like when he acknowledged in May that some might find his efforts to make Ukraine investigate Trump’s political rivals “improper” —
To see one only needs to open ones EYES
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seem like you are on the verge of tears. Get a hold of yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't know who John Solomon is. I know that Hunter Biden, while his dad was THE administration's point person on Ukraine, got a very lucrative job in Ukraine. There's a lot of countries out there, but it had to be Ukraine where Hunter got on the board?

Again, if they did nothing wrong, no one has any reason to fear an investigation.

The left sees zero connection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The left sees zero connection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More Hunter corruption. A few weeks after Hunter joined Rosemont Capital in 2009, Rosemont got a $130 million federal bailout loan. Hunter's father, of course, was VP when the loan was made. Just a coincidence...

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/hunter-biden-linked-company-received-130m-in-special-federal-loans-while-joe-biden-was-vp

The left sees zero connection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But we're the ones with our heads in the sand.

But we're the ones with our heads in the sand.

You should pull them out

Imagine a preeminent White House official who is unqualified, incompetent, and contemptuous of the law. Or who conceals his contacts with foreign officials, is targeted for exploitation by foreign intelligence services because of his naïveté and lack of ethics, and is deemed a security risk by his own government.

https://thebulwark.com/the-crown-prince-of-trumpistan/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

After you get your wits about you again you should look at the ties between
Deripaska
Firtash
DiGenova
Toensing
Parnas
Fruman
Giuliani
Nunes
Sessions
Floridaman
They all are tied together with Ukraine gas
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🙀🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Scorching testimony today. When do you think SD will realize his nothing burgers are really love letters to Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yawn...still nothing impeachable here...deranged democrats and butt-hurt bureaucrats sharing office gossip.....are they going to vote to impeach with no republican support and a couple of democrats defecting?....that will be impressive :hihi:

VDH had some great points...

"In that context, it is baffling that a parade of civil servants now expresses their disenchantment with the White House policies of delaying lethal military aid that was fully delivered. Yet many of these critics were in government service between 2009–17.

The natural question arises, then: Where was their outrage at resetting with the Russians and leaving the Ukrainians to fend for themselves when it came to stopping Russian armor?

We can understand Fiona Hill’s apparent anguish at a temporary administrative delay in sending lethal aid, but she said nothing about not arming them in the past in extremis, and even wrote an incoherent Washington Post op-ed supporting the Obama administration’s failure to arm them.

When Hill states that Ukrainian officials had no involvement in the 2016 election to harm the Trump campaign, her opinions are in stark contrast to the testimonies of Ukrainian officials themselves, who cited Ukrainian efforts to discredit the Trump campaign.

And when she adds that Russians were seeding chaos without preferences in 2016, she again engages in selective memory. She must know that we spent 22 months and $35 million to show that there was no Russian–Trump election collusion, and we are soon going to learn from the Horowitz and Durham investigations whether U.S. officials trafficked with a British subject, hired by the Clinton campaign, to seed a spurious “dossier” that drew on all too willing Russian-seeded smears and libels that did a great deal of damage to the integrity to the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and the FISA courts, as many in these agencies used such unverified Russian dirt to harm a presidential campaign and transition.

Many of the witnesses are fine public servants, but their current and frequently expressed discontent over Trump’s Ukraine policy would find a more credible audience had they shown the prior courage to disagree with a past president popular within the ranks of the Washington bureaucracy who nonetheless did a lot of damage to Ukraine, by empowering Vladimir Putin and failing to adopt the measures that Trump rather quickly embraced and implemented.

There are two constants in these entire hearings: presumptions, assumptions, and conjectures from civil servant A about what civil servant B said or thought, and outrage at a temporary delay in lethal military juxtaposed by past silence over its prior nonexistence — which explains why what was born with a bang is ending with a whimper."

After you get your wits about you again you should look at the ties between
Deripaska
Firtash
DiGenova
Toensing
Parnas
Fruman
Giuliani
Nunes
Sessions
Floridaman
They all are tied together with Ukraine gas
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure their pictures are all on the wall of your bunker :shocked:

Scorching testimony today. When do you think SD will realize his nothing burgers are really love letters to Putin?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh my yes. I loved Schiff saying that the reason people aren't swayed by hearsay and presumption, is that our intellect isn't as sophisticated as that of lawyers.

yawn...still nothing impeachable here...deranged democrats and butt-hurt bureaucrats sharing office gossip.....are they going to vote to impeach with no republican support and a couple of democrats defecting?....that will be impressive :hihi:

VDH had some great points...

We can understand Fiona Hill’s apparent anguish at a temporary administrative delay in sending lethal aid, but she said nothing about not arming them in the past in extremis, and even wrote an incoherent Washington Post op-ed supporting the Obama administration’s failure to arm them.

When Hill states that Ukrainian officials had no involvement in the 2016 election to harm the Trump campaign, her opinions are in stark contrast to the testimonies of Ukrainian officials themselves, who cited Ukrainian efforts to discredit the Trump campaign.

And when she adds that Russians were seeding chaos without preferences in 2016, she again engages in selective memory. She must know that we spent 22 months and $35 million to show that there was no Russian–Trump election collusion, and we are soon going to learn from the Horowitz and Durham investigations whether U.S. officials trafficked with a British subject, hired by the Clinton campaign, to seed a spurious “dossier” that drew on all too willing Russian-seeded smears and libels that did a great deal of damage to the integrity to the FBI, the CIA, the DOJ, and the FISA courts, as many in these agencies used such unverified Russian dirt to harm a presidential campaign and transition.

Many of the witnesses are fine public servants, but their current and frequently expressed discontent over Trump’s Ukraine policy would find a more credible audience had they shown the prior courage to disagree with a past president popular within the ranks of the Washington bureaucracy who nonetheless did a lot of damage to Ukraine, by empowering Vladimir Putin and failing to adopt the measures that Trump rather quickly embraced and implemented.

There are two constants in these entire hearings: presumptions, assumptions, and conjectures from civil servant A about what civil servant B said or thought, and outrage at a temporary delay in lethal military juxtaposed by past silence over its prior nonexistence — which explains why what was born with a bang is ending with a whimper."

Lots of flip-flopping. I'm sure it has nothing to do with TDS.

I think you are mistaken if you think the Democrats don’t know what happened in 2016, the leadership and even most candidates are very aware of what happened, as are most educated Americans with a brain.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yesterday on CNN, Don Lemon (who they call an 'anchor'), said anyone not on their side of impeachment, is "mental".

That suggests to me, that some very high profile people on the left, have absolutely no idea what happened in 2016. It's very difficult to say 'we blew it'. It's much easier on the ego, to play the victim, and say you lost an election because of racism, sexism, angry white males, ignorance, oh and let's not forget Russia. But not because of anything you did.

Does Hilary's book suggest to you, she has any understanding of why she lost?

Oh my yes. I loved Schiff saying that the reason people aren't swayed by hearsay and presumption, is that our intellect isn't as sophisticated as that of lawyers.

it's pretty obvious that schif is possessed by satan:devil2:

Will Israel be Floridaman’s next target

Bibi Netanyahu has been indicted for corruption...

The EU gives almost no aid to Israel...

Israel was not “with us at Normandy”...

So when is Floridaman cutting off aid and ending White House meetings???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of you need to watch both fox and Cnn i have in real time..

One station has calm rational round table conversation with up to 6 people , And one has host and maybe 3 people all animated using very colorful words and lots of pictures with flashly headlines..

Then you have FB

Had a friend post how Jordon destroyed some one in his Trumplican form. A few other supported his view
I said he was a tool. Nothing more
A day later and several pro jordon posts from others His response was he was just posting his opinion ! and if you came here to argue go else where.. i guess i dont get an opinion on any post he starts unless i agree ..

So this plays out on bothside a lot ( if you Dont agree with me dont add to MY public post..

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy because the avg age on FB is 40.5 years old and the vast majority believe every meme or QUOTE over what the hear on the news or read in a. Paper. And they Vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Some of you need to watch both fox and Cnn i have in real time..

One station has calm rational round table conversation with up to 6 people , And one has host and maybe 3 people all animated using very colorful words and lots of pictures with flashly headlines..

Then you have FB

Had a friend post how Jordon destroyed some one in his Trumplican form. A few other supported his view
I said he was a tool. Nothing more
A day later and several pro jordon posts from others His response was he was just posting his opinion ! and if you came here to argue go else where.. i guess i dont get an opinion on any post he starts unless i agree ..

So this plays out on bothside a lot ( if you Dont agree with me dont add to MY public post..

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy because the avg age on FB is 40.5 years old and the vast majority believe every meme or QUOTE over what the hear on the news or read in a. Paper. And they Vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i watch CNN regularly. this week Don Lemon said people who disagree with him are “mental”.
and chris chino tried to prove trump was wrong ( when he said you can’t hear both sides of a phone conversation unless the call is on speakerphone) by calling his
mother live, and as usual, made a fool of himself.

Hannity is as big a partisan hack as CNNs entire prime time
lineup. Tucker Carlson, while
conservative, is better than the rest in prime time. he regularly criticized conservatives, he regularly tells liberals they have a good point. i don’t see that a lot at CNN.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

FB is the biggest danger to our democracy

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ban FB...

wait i thought trump was the biggest danger to our democracy?

An attorney from DC, has an interesting theory that connects all the dots.

I just realized that, for whatever reason, Sondland got his testimony about his "no quid pro quo" call with President Trump wrong. He testified that the call took place on September 9th, but that can't possibly be true.
Sondland's testimony was that, on Sept. 9, he got a "shocking" text from Bill Taylor in which he linked the hold on military assistance to the Biden investigations. That prompted Sondland to call Trump, who told him "no quid pro quo," which Sondland then parroted back to Taylor.



But Sondland wasn't telling the truth about why he called Trump. The "no quid pro quo" call was on Sept 7, and he told Tim Morrison about it, not Bill Taylor. It was Morrison who told Taylor about the call.

And Sondland wasn't telling the truth about what Trump said on the call.
The call Sondland testified about at his hearing yesterday didn't happen. But the Republicans and the WH loved his story – Trump even wrote out Sondland's testimony about what Trump had said on the call and gave a dramatic reenactment of it on the WH lawn.

POLITICO
✔
@politico
Donald Trump seized upon one particular bit of testimony from Gordon Sondland's hearing today. The EU envoy testified that the president told him "I want nothing" from Ukraine, and "I want no quid pro quo."

“That means it’s all over," Trump told reportershttps://politi.co/335Phsc

Embedded video
3,724
1:58 PM - Nov 20, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
2,788 people are talking about this
"I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo."

But that's not what Trump told Sondland in that call. What Trump actually said, according to Morrison and Taylor, was that *Trump wanted Zelensky to personally announce on camera that he was opening investigations into Burisma and 2016.*

Bill Taylor's testimony about this is clear and corresponds to recorded dates. On Sept. 7, a Saturday, he had to make a special trip to the embassy to make a secured call to Tim Morrison.

And in this call, Morrison updated him on Sondland's "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.


So Bill Taylor had nothing whatsoever to do with the call. Sondland's testimony that it was Taylor's text that prompted him to make the call was not truthful.
Instead, on Sept 7th, Sondland called Trump, and Trump claimed he "was not asking for a quid pro quo," but then immediately insisted that Zelensky "go to a microphone" and announce he was opening investigations into "Biden and 2016."

Sondland then told Morrison about the call.

Morrison was so disturbed by what Sondland had told him about his call with Trump that he immediately ran to the NSC lawyers to report it.

So Eisenberg has detailed reports about this call, and knows that Sondland's testimony about it yesterday was false.

The entire Republican defense of Trump yesterday was based on Sondland's false testimony about Trump "I want nothing."

But that's not what Trump said! Morrison documented with NSC lawyers that Trump said *he wanted Zelensky to announce that he was investigating Biden.*
Yesterday, Sondland kept playing the victim of his poor memory and the State Dept, claiming that because State had refused to give him access to his records and call logs, he couldn't verify his recollection of his calls with Trump.

But I don't think that's what happened at all. What Sondland actually testified is that the White House and State Department told him they "cannot locate" records of his Sept. 9th "no quid pro quo" call with Trump.

But of course they couldn't. That call doesn't exist!

The other lesson from all this is that when you make incriminating phone calls, don't be a #^&#^&#^&#^& about it. Because that helps witnesses remember it better when they testify.

Sondland needed to call and update Morrison on Sept. 7th because Trump had changed his request.

In the Sept 7 call, Trump told Sondland that it wasn't enough for the chief prosecutor to announce the investigations – Zelensky himself would need to do it.

Timothy Hayes
@ty2433
Replying to @TheViewFromLL2
Why did Sondland call Morrison?

2
7:01 PM - Nov 21, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
See Timothy Hayes's other Tweets
Sequence is:

Sept 1: In Warsaw, Sondland tells Yermak that to get aid released, the Prosecutor General must announce the Burisma investigation.

Sept 7: Trump & Sondland speak on phone, and Trump tells Sondland that the PG isn't good enough, announcement must come from Zelensky.


Later on Sept 7: Sondland calls Morrison and says, "Hey, I just talked to Trump, and there's been a change. Trump says there is no quid pro quo, but in order to get the aid money released, he now wants Pres. Zelensky personally to make the Burisma investigation announcement."
Still later on Sept 7: Morrison goes to NSC lawyers and Bolton to report on the Sondland and Trump call.

Which means there's contemporaneous documentation (or there should be) of Morrison's report on the "no quid pro quo" call, in which Trump actually describes his quid pro quo.

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1197643515834109952.html

Theory?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Theory?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As opposed to the current Trumplican theory that Trump did not do, just what was it he did not do?

Ask for an investigation of Biden, he did
Ask for an investigation of the 2016 election, he did

Threaten Ukraine to get these things by

Withholding a meeting, he did
Withholding aid, he did

Oh, he did not say it on any record and won't release any
Oh, nobody heard him directly and the belief that was what he wanted is obviously mass hysteria

Somebody is not paying attention. We call this a one trick pony.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is always a coverup, this is Susan Simpson's stuff after she cleaned it up. If you go to her twitter feed she has the transcripts linked in her thread and this is a very tight line she has defined.
https://twitter.com/TheViewFromLL2

The impeachment inquiry has been crippled from the beginning by the Exec Branch's obstruction, and its refusal to produce any records to the House.

But detailed, contemporaneous documentation showing Sondland lied in his testimony does exist. Because the NSC lawyers have it.

To see why, here's a quick recap of how the Ukraine matter unfolded, from the viewpoint of the National Security Council's top lawyer, John Eisenberg.

Thanks to Ambassador John Bolton, who made sure his subordinates went in to document every step along the way, Eisenberg knows a lot.

July 10: Sondland attends the Ward Room meeting with the Ukrainian delegation, and tells the Ukrainians that he and Chief of Staff Mulvaney have an agreement – if the Ukrainians go forward with their investigations, Zelensky will get his White House meeting with the president.
Later on July 10: After the Ward Room meeting, Fiona Hill goes to Eisenberg's office. She tells him Bolton sent her to report what had happened during the meeting with the Ukrainians, and Sondland's agreement to give Zelensky a WH visit in exchange for opening the investigations.
Also on July 10: Vindman separately goes to NSC legal to report the meeting, and gives the whole backstory to Eisenberg. He explains that for months Giuliani has been pushing the Ukrainians for an investigation into Biden/2016, and that now Sondland was asking for the same thing.

July 25: Per Eisenberg's instructions to "come back to me" if there were more concerns, Vindman return to NSC legal to report the phone call he had just heard between Pres. Trump and Pres. Zelensky.
Vindman tells Eisenberg that in the call with Zelensky, Trump had made the same request for investigations that both Giuliani and Sondland had previously been pressuring the Ukrainians for. Trump had specifically requested that Zelensky investigate both Biden and the DNC.
Also on July 25: Vindman's new boss, Tim Morrison, was on the Zelensky call as well. That same day, independent of Vindman, he goes to NSC legal to report what had happened on the July 25th call.
Even later on July 25: Morrison and Eisenberg have additional meetings about the Trump-Zelensky call. They make the decision to restrict access to the call, to prevent leaks about it from getting out.
Morrison is not involved in the subsequent decision about *how* to restrict access. Unbeknownst to Morrison, the July 25th call ultimately ends up locked away on the highly classified system – even though the call definitely does not belong there.

August 14: CIA lawyer Elwood receives the whistleblower's initial complaint, which was done outside of the ICIG WB process. She calls top NSC lawyer Eisenberg to discuss the issue, and they alert the DOJ. Elwood believes she is making a criminal referral. https://nbcnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry/cia-s-top-lawyer-made-criminal-referral-whistleblower-s-complaint-n1062481

Late August: While preparing for the Warsaw meeting, Morrison tries to access the July 25 call and realizes it's not there. He tracks it down on the highly classified system, and when he asks Eisenberg how that happened, Eisenberg says it ended up there due to a miscommunication.

Sept 1: Pence and Zelensky have a bilat in Warsaw. After the meeting, Zelensky and Pence depart, but Gordon Sondland, Tim Morrison, and senior Zelensky-adviser Andriy Yermak are among those left. Morrison, per his testimony, saw Yermak and Sondland speaking.
Immediately after his conversation with Yermak, Sondland walks over to Morrison to give him an update. Sondland says he told Yermak that "the security assistance money will not come until Pres. Zelensky commits to pursuing the Burisma investigation."
Morrison's memory of this is distinct, and he recalls a detail that will become important later: in Sondland's discussion with Yermak, they agreed that it would be "sufficient" for the Prosecutor General – and not Pres. Zelensky – to make the public investigation announcement.
After Sondland's update, Morrison immediately calls Taylor to update him on what had happened w/ Yermak. Taylor in turn texts Sondland: "Are we now saying that security assistance and a WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"
"Call me," Sondland response, so Taylor does.
In that Sept 1 phone call between Sondland and Taylor, Sondland says he spoke to Trump, and Trump told him Zelensky needs to publicly announce the Biden/2016 investigations, and that Trump would not agree to the WH meeting or security assistance until Zelensky did so.
This is the call where Sondland tells Taylor he made a mistake back on July 10, at the WH meeting with the Ukrainains. Sondland had told them that a WH meeting was dependent on a public announcement of investigations, but in fact the security assistance was also dependent on it.
In their Sept 1 call, Taylor and Sondland also discuss the same possible compromise that Sondland + Morrison had discussed: rather than have Zelensky make the announcement about investigating Biden/2016, perhaps the Prosecutor General could do it instead? Sondland says he'll try.

September 2 or 3: after returning from Warsaw, Morrison goes to the NSC lawyers for the second time, to report on Sondland's Sept. 1 discussion with Yermak, and the quid pro quo arrangement that Sondland had conveyed to the Ukrainians.

Sept 7: Trump and Sondland have a phone call. As discussed in an earlier thread, this is the call where Trump tells Sondland, "no quid pro quo."
But that's not all that Trump says. And we know this because Sondland immediately calls Morrison to tell him.
Later Sept 7: Sondland calls Morrison and tells him he just spoke with Trump, and that Trump had said "that he was not asking for a quid pro quo, but that he insisted that President Zelensky go to a microphone and say he is opening investigations of Biden and 2016 interference."
What's important here is Sondland wasn't just calling Morrison to say, "oh btw, Trump called."
Sondland's call had a specific purpose: to update Morrison on a change of plans from what was agreed to in Warsaw. Trump rejected the Prosecutor General compromise, he wanted Zelensky.
As Sondland conveyed to Morrison on Sept 7, "it wouldn't be enough for the Prosecutor General" to publicly announce the 2016/Burisma investigations. Trump told Sondland that he still wanted "Zelensky personally" to make the announcement.

Sept 8: Sondland calls Taylor to update him on the Sept 7 call with Trump (which Taylor already knew about, from Morrison).
Sondland tells Taylor that he and Trump had discussed the compromise that Taylor had pushed for the week before, but that Trump had rejected it.
In this Sept. 8th call, Sondland explicitly told Taylor that he had "talked to President Trump … and that Trump was adamant that President Zelensky himself" make the announcement of the Burisma/2016 investigations.
What Sondland was describing is the "no quid pro quo" call.

Sept 9: The ICIG notifies House Committees about the whistleblower's report. The WH is likely informed of this by letter, and at 10:00am it's discussed in the Senior Directors Meeting.

Why all this matters:
1. In the "no QPQ" call, Trump told Sondland about the specific quid pro quo that he required from Ukraine
2. Morrison immediately informed NSC legal about the call
3. NSC legal has contemporaneous records showing Sondland's testimony about the call is false

The White House is sitting on proof that Sondland's testimony about the "no quid pro quo" call was wrong.

Because the same day the call happened, Morrison ran to NSC to report it. And the NSC's Sept. 7th records are far more reliable than whatever Sondland said.
We do have the statements from both Morrison and Taylor, however, both of whom Sondland called to update on the "no quid pro quo" call.

And both agree: Trump did say "no quid pro quo," but he also described the precise quid pro quo he was requiring.

Sondland was wrong.

This also means that on August 14, John Eisenberg participated in making a criminal referral to DOJ based on Trump's July 25th call.

And then, in Sept, when given proof that Trump had escalated the conduct that had resulted in the criminal referral, Eisenberg kept it hidden.

Keep believing PeteF. You have been duped.
🤡🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Keep believing PeteF. You have been duped.
🤡🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean like this

Throughout the 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly insisted that he had not done business in Russia “in years.” Trump issued highly specific denials on July 26, October 9, and October 26 of that year. He denied any Russian business connections in the year after the election, too, on January 11, February 16, and May 11. In fact, as abundant written evidence corroborates, Trump was actively pursuing a Trump Tower Moscow project all through the first year of his presidential campaign, from summer 2015 until the deal collapsed in summer 2016. Trump was seeking a huge payday from the Russian state while he was running to head the American state, a story broken by The Washington Post on August 27, 2017.

Fake news ingested by you
🙈🤡🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hunter is more fun than billy carter...

Those Republican talking points about Ukraine we’ve been hearing?

Turns out they were written in Moscow

And they keep getting pushed by Putin’s Puppet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Those Republican talking points about Ukraine we’ve been hearing?

Turns out they were written in Moscow

And they keep getting pushed by Putin’s Puppet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This really is the most important part of the story. Putin is rapidly advancing his foreign policy objectives with very little effort because Trump, Nunes, Dangles, Jim etc... are all willing and active participants.

It’s all Russia First for them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This really is the most important part of the story. Putin is rapidly advancing his foreign policy objectives with very little effort because Trump, Nunes, Dangles, Jim etc... are all willing and active participants.

It’s all Russia First for them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, it wasn't that long ago when Mitt Romney said Russia was a threat, Obama mocked him for it, and we all know that Obama's joke made you swoon. Funny how that worked out. Can you admit that Romney was right, and Obama was wrong?

Spence, it wasn't that long ago when Mitt Romney said Russia was a threat, Obama mocked him for it, and we all know that Obama's joke made you swoon. Funny how that worked out. Can you admit that Romney was right, and Obama was wrong?
But bit obama really thats the best you can do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This really is the most important part of the story. Putin is rapidly advancing his foreign policy objectives with very little effort because Trump, Nunes, Dangles, Jim etc... are all willing and active participants.

It’s all Russia First for them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is snowflake logic at its finest. Glad you got off the field long enough to offer what can only be considered as typical progressive thought process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But bit obama really thats the best you can do
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the best you can do in response, is to go "duh".

And the best you can do in response, is to go "duh".
Maybe you should bring up Javelins blankets and MRE

Ps Russians would'nt be the issue they've become .with out Trumps help.. same with Turkey china iran n korea .. we don't have a foreign policy . We have what side of the bed Trump wakes up on policy..

And yours and republicans defense is anyone who criticizes Trump is just a never trumper, hate or but hurt bureaucrats

Again more alternative reality and defend the Tribe
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjVuVhmcxkM

This is snowflake logic at its finest. Glad you got off the field long enough to offer what can only be considered as typical progressive thought process.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So your considered opinion is that our intelligence services are driven by a progressive agenda and Floridaman’s Ukraine theories are correct, that his actions in Syria, NATO, Far East, Africa etc have not enabled Putin to increase his sphere of influence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, it wasn't that long ago when Mitt Romney said Russia was a threat, Obama mocked him for it, and we all know that Obama's joke made you swoon. Funny how that worked out. Can you admit that Romney was right, and Obama was wrong?

On this issue he was wrong, yes.
Trump has done nothing but made it worse, and has further enabled Putin to carry on.

Russia is loving the Trump era of USA infighting and they keep feeding Trump, Rudy and now apparently idiot Nunes the conspiracy theories they eat like candy; or in Trumps case like Cheetos. Russia is a failing economy relying almost exclusively on oil and Trump gives them room to expand, he loves his Dictator buds. China bud might get help from Trump on the Hong Kong resolution, but that’s what friends do for friends. NK bud got his evil empire legitimized on the world stage and we got nada, but friends do for friends right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

On this issue he was wrong, yes.
Trump has done nothing but made it worse, and has further enabled Putin to carry on.

i note that spence didn’t respond
The left loved Obama’s
mockery of Romney, ate it up, they thought it was awesome. Spence was likely weak in the knees.

i agree trump is making it worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i note that spence didn’t respond
The left loved Obama’s
mockery of Romney, ate it up, they thought it was awesome. Spence was likely weak in the knees.

i agree trump is making it worse.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That was a long time ago Jim, try focusing of what’s going on today. Trump is executing Russian foreign policy, lying about it and Republicans are defending and encouraging it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device