Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT
nonsensical foaming at the mouth.
you have no problem with clinton meeting with lynch, because you don’t know what was said. But neither do you know what trump said to the russian minister, yet you concluded it was inappropriate because of appearance.
When was the meeting on the tarmac? Why today would I care?
You don’t know what trump
discussed in his meeting. but based on its appearance, you conclude it’s an inappropriate meeting.
You don’t know what clinton and lynch discussed, therefore you won’t form an opinion on the appropriateness of the meeting. The appearance, in this case, doesn’t matter to you. With Trump, appearance was enough.
You are an obvious, naked, glaring, hypocrite. You’re applying completely different standards based on the political party of the person involved, and when
i point that out, all you can say is “ but Hilary...”
Destroyed.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
|
I don't understand why you felt the need to inject Clinton into this, but since you did.
You have a problem with Clinton and Lynch because you assume, with no basis, that they negotiated something. But no problem with Floridaman even though Sondland, Taylor, Hill and others assumed, with basis testified to under oath, that he asked for information to benefit him politically in return for aid to Ukraine.
And you claim I am a hypocrite.
But once again you assume you have destroyed me by conflating issues and claiming they are the same.
The act of a meeting with someone in the Oval Office's importance in diplomacy is not the same as someone meeting another person on an airport runway.
That is why it was so important to Zelensky that he got the Oval Office meeting.
Failing to understand the difference or import of these decisions explains why you think our allies are solid, our foreign relations are stable and that you believe Floridaman has an understanding and grasp on what our foreign policy is now, where it was and where it is going.