Oh Donnie, You're invited

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by scottw

so??

Shocking you never actually had a point

[Got Stripers]

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nancy is pretty childish....she tries to sound adult but she's not fooling anyone...well, you I guess

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

How does that compare to airing our dirty laundry and whining like a baby about impeachment? What a well thought out retort Scott.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Does it bother you at all, that Pelosi lives in a mansion and flies in private aircraft, yet you’d let her tell you to make sacrifices that she would never dream of making? That’s a sincere question.

I respect your concern for the environment. But youre ok that wealthy and celebrities have some
kind of divine right to utilize luxuries that harm the environment? They’re somehow
entitled to live differently than the rest of us?

It’s hard for me to believe, that they actually believe, what they are saying.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh no I don’t think the rich are not owing this country for what either they or their family made because of what this country provided in the way of business opportunities. I’m all for a wealth tax, it’s about time they stopped avoiding paying what is a drop in the bucket, they should be paying more because they can afford it. They should start helping pay for their success, pay down our debt, help pay for higher education and rebuild our infrastructure.

That includes the Trump’s and Pelosi’s of the world.

Still has nothing to do with Trump whining like a baby on the world stage, it’s just not the way our elected leaders should be acting overseas; you keep that crap at home. Trump can’t of course it has ALWAYS been all about him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Haters gonna hate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Greatest president of our lifetime
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

The WH seems not to be able to find any record of the "no QPQ" call.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

The WH seems not to be able to find any record of the "no QPQ" call.

how about the conversation between trump and Sondman? That was pretty explicit.

and both parties on the call, deny any quid pro quo, so theres that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

how about the conversation between trump and Sondman? That was pretty explicit.

and both parties on the call, deny any quid pro quo, so theres that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

The call that apparently didn't exist you mean?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by PaulS

Do you mean the call where Trump said "No QPQ"? and then recently he read the words he said from a piece of paper on the WH lawn?

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/h...ever-happened/


At the heart of the impeachment inquiry, members of Congress may have been mistakenly led to believe that there were two phone calls between President Donald Trump and Ambassador Gordon Sondland in early September—with the second call having the possibility of helping the President’s case. That’s not what happened. There was only one call, and it was highly incriminating.

The call occurred on September 7th. In this call, Trump did say there was “no quid pro quo” with Ukraine, but he then went on to outline his preconditions for releasing the security assistance and granting a White House visit. The call was so alarming that when John Bolton learned of it, he ordered his deputy Tim Morrison to immediately report it to the National Security Council lawyers.

Sondland has testified there was a call on September 9th in which Trump said there was “no quid pro quo,” but that he wanted President Zelenskyy “to do” the right thing. A close reading of the publicly available evidence shows that the latter call was actually the very one that sent Morrison to the lawyers, and that Ambassador Bill Taylor foregrounded in his written deposition to inform Congress of the quid pro quo.

As this article was in the publication process at Just Security, the Washington Post published a report raising doubts about the existence of the September 9 call. The analysis that follows is consistent with the Post’s report and, among other points, shows why Sondland’s “no quid pro quo” call is in fact the same as the September 7th call that Morrison reported to NSC lawyers on September 7th

One of the central questions that the House’s impeachment inquiry is attempting to resolve is “whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraine’s willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign.” And, over the past several weeks, witnesses testifying before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) have given uncontested testimony that established the following:
∙During a July 10, 2019 meeting at the White House, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union told Ukrainians officials that there would be a “pre-requisite of investigations” before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 10; Hill Depo. at 27; Vindman Depo. at 29)
∙During a July 25, 2019 phone call, President Trump asked President Zelenskyy for the “favor” of an investigation into Joe Biden and the false, Russian-backed claims that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. (Memcon of Trump-Zelenskyy Call, July 25, 2019)
∙Following a July 26, 2019 meeting between the Ambassador to the EU and Ukrainians officials, President Trump asked the ambassador, “So [Zelenskyy is] going to do the investigation?”, to which the ambassador replied, “He’s going to do it.” (Holmes Depo. at 24; Sondland Testimony on Nov. 20, 2019)
∙President Trump demanded that President Zelenskyy make a public announcement that he was opening an investigation into Biden and the 2016 election as a pre-requisite before he would agree to a White House meeting. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
∙President Trump’s personal attorney told both American officials and Ukrainian officials that the president would require, as a quid pro quo, that Ukraine announce the desired investigations before any White House meeting would occur. (Sondland Opening Statement, Nov. 20, 2019, at 14)
∙At a meeting in Warsaw, Poland, the U.S. Ambassador to the European Union informed a senior Ukrainian official that the security assistance money would not be released until Ukraine publicly announced an investigation into “Burisma and 2016.” (Sondland Declaration, Nov. 4, 2019, at 2; Taylor Opening Statement, Oct. 22, 2019, at 10-11; Morrison Depo. at 144-145)

That list is by no means exhaustive. In addition to other testimony before the HPSCI supporting these facts, the Acting Chief of Staff/Director of the Office of Management and Budget Mick Mulvaney stated during a press conference that the security assistance to Ukraine was withheld as a quid pro quo in exchange for Ukraine conducting an investigation into false allegations of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

What then, is there left for the impeachment inquiry to prove?

In the face of this damning and conclusive evidence, the White House and House Republicans have been forced to retreat to their current defense: that President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

I. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call

Of all the omissions from Ambassador Sondland’s testimony, one of the most significant has to do with his testimony about what has been dubbed the “no quid pro quo” call. Because the White House and State Department did not comply with the House’s subpoenas for records, no documents concerning this call have been produced, but all witnesses agree that, some time around the second week of September, President Trump and Ambassador Sondland had a phone call, and at some point during this call, Trump said the words “no quid pro quo.”

Sondland has, at times, been ambiguous as to when exactly this phone call took place, and has vacillated between the dates of September 6-9. But in the version of events that Sondland most frequently describes in his testimony, he says that he made the “no quid pro quo” call on September 9th. Sondland has testified it was a brief conversation, in which he asked President Trump a single question:


I asked him one open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine? And as I recall, he was in a very bad mood. It was a very quick conversation. He said: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelenskyy to do the right thing. (Sondland Depo. at 106)

It is this testimony from Sondland that the White House and House Republicans have clung to, in support of their claim that the impeachment inquiry has failed to show misconduct by the President. ’’

President Trump has taken to regularly invoking Sondland’s testimony at rallies and at press events, asserting that Sondland’s description of the “no quid pro” call exonerates him. In fact, in the middle of Sondland’s public testimony, President Trump made an appearance on the White House lawn, a portion of Sondland’s paraphrased testimony in hand, to perform a dramatic reenactment of the call, as it was described by Sondland.



Overall, it must be noted, Sondland’s testimony was incredibly damning for Trump. However, it was not quite as damning as it should have been.

Because in reality, as shown from the testimony of other witnesses, the “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th. What’s more, the call was not prompted by any text from Bill Taylor. And lastly, Sondland’s testimony about the “no quid pro quo” call omitted the most important part: the part where President Trump informed Sondland that the security assistance would be at a “stalemate” until President Zelenskyy stood in front of a microphone and personally announced that he was opening an investigation into Trump’s political rivals.

II. The “No Quid Pro Quo” Call Took Place on Sept. 7, Not on Sept. 9

The “no quid pro quo” call did not take place on September 9th, as Sondland claimed at one point in his testimony; instead, it took place on September 7th. This is shown from the testimony of Tim Morrison, Senior Director for European Affairs for the National Security Council, and Charge D’Affaires Bill Taylor, both of whom were briefed on the call by Sondland shortly after it occurred.

This detail is critically important, not because the precise date of the call is significant in and of itself, but because of what it shows about the true content of that call – the substance of the conversation that Morrison and Taylor described in their testimony, and that Sondland omitted from his.

Sondland’s Testimony

Though Ambassador Sondland testified that, to the best of his recollection, the “no quid pro quo” call occurred on September 9th, Sondland was also quick to point out that as a result of his inability to review certain State Department records, his “memory admittedly has not been perfect.” (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019) Still, Sondland said he had a distinct reason for remembering the date of this particular call: it was prompted by what Sondland described as a “fairly shocking” and “alarming” text message he received from Charge Taylor, in a group chat that included Ambassador Kurt Volker. It was in response to this text, Sondland said, that Sondland made the call to President Trump:


So rather than ask the President nine different questions – is it this, is it this, is that – I just said what do you want from Ukraine? I may have even used a four letter word. And he said I want nothing, I want no quid pro quo, I just want Zelensky to do the right thing, to do what he ran on or – or words to that effect. (Sondland Testimony of Nov. 20, 2019)

Because Ambassador Volker’s text exchanges were one of the few documentary records produced in response to the HSPCI’s subpoenas, we have a copy of the text exchange Sondland referred to. Per Volker’s records, Taylor’s text was sent at 12:47am on September 9th:

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i meant when Sondman asked trump what he wanted, and trump told him nothing, no qpq.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

President Trump himself has not been proven to have done anything wrong, because there was no witness who testified to having personally heard the President announce that he was seeking a quid pro quo from Ukraine, in exchange for release of the security assistance.

This “defense,” it should be noted, is hardly a defense at all. There is no dispute that the President used the powers of his office to coerce a foreign state into investigating a domestic political rival, nor is there any dispute that the Ukrainians were informed by the Trump administration that the hold on security assistance would not be lifted until these investigation were publicly announced. Multiple witnesses also testified that EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland had told them that, in his conversations with the president, Trump had described his requirement for Zelenskyy to publicly announce the investigations into Biden and 2016. However, to the extent that no witness testified to having personally heard Trump request a quid pro quo in regards to the security assistance, there are two reasons for this.

The first is that, with a single exception, every individual who interacted directly with President Trump refused to comply with House subpoenas for their testimony.

The second is that the single exception who did testify, Ambassador Sondland, did not testify accurately when he said that President Trump had never asked him for a quid pro quo from Ukraine. In fact, President Trump had personally informed Sondland of his specific demands for a quid pro quo from Ukraine – and the White House National Security Council is sitting on documents that confirm it.

When Trump is impeached and has to release the documents and allow his staff to testify, it will emerge.

https://www.justsecurity.org/67536/h...ever-happened/

[Pete F.]

The GOP changed its platform to pro-Russia when Trump became the nominee and is now saying it’s basically all good that Russia has invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. Can you really blame their politicians for having an opinion on America’s elections.

So now the move over the last 72 hours has been to conflate criminal interference in an election with having a preference. Yet another way the GOP shows confidence their base won’t see through their lies.

This is why waiting for the next election — the very election Trump is NOW corrupting and will stop at nothing to “win” — is no substitute for impeachment and removal.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

The GOP changed its platform to pro-Russia when Trump became the nominee and is now saying it’s basically all good that Russia has invaded and occupied part of Ukraine. Can you really blame their politicians for having an opinion on America’s elections.

So now the move over the last 72 hours has been to conflate criminal interference in an election with having a preference. Yet another way the GOP shows confidence their base won’t see through their lies.

This is why waiting for the next election — the very election Trump is NOW corrupting and will stop at nothing to “win” — is no substitute for impeachment and removal.

Moscow Mitch has transformed the GOP into a cult, he puts party over the needs of the nation and Trump is the cult leader. I sincerely hope blindly following Trump bites them back hard and they loss seats they might not have had they acted differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Moscow Mitch has transformed the GOP into a cult, he puts party over the needs of the nation and Trump is the cult leader. I sincerely hope blindly following Trump bites them back hard and they loss seats they might not have had they acted differently.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Snow day got you whining?
Set a good example and go make snow angels with Peg. Teach fun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

All the people with an agenda at least
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

You previously said that Floridaman had produced a shred to prove me wrong when I said zero.
Apparently I was correct.

[Sea Dangles]

🍔🍔🤡🍔🍔
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You previously said that Floridaman had produced a shred to prove me wrong when I said zero.
Apparently I was correct.

Well, he did, and I must admit that it is becoming too tiresome to keep riding your anti-Trump merry go round. I don't have the energy that you do to keep going back and pointing out what was said by whom. And it is getting to the point with me to not even care. It will all continue to morph from one accusation, one investigation, one condemnation and pearl clutching OMG, one supposedly impeachable or criminal offense, that all fail, into the next one that you hope will work. It is obvious what's going on. Sea Dangles approach is looking more and more an attractive one.

Like jim said. It is not possible to talk to you. I have stopped reading your long cut and pastes because they have all been uncritical politically slanted opinions. I used to debunk them line by line for which you had no answer. The last one, except for a few shorter ones, that I read was by some retired CIA "expert" that analyzed Trump to be a useful idiot for Putin. It was amazing to me that you, or any analytically minded person, could not see that this "expert's" analysis could equally, or more so, show most of the Presidents since, and especially including, FDR to be useful idiots either of Russia or China. And that Trump is a piker as useful idiot compared to others.

I mean, TO THIS DAY, (so it is not merely an old so-called whataboutism), Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the Democrats greatest President. And yet he was by far, indisputably and demonstrably, the most egregious useful idiot for the Soviet Union that occupied the Oval Office. His policies were directly responsible for handing over Eastern Europe to Russia and eventually China into the soviet sphere.

And, as far as policies that are useful to those communist regimes, The Democrat Party association with the CPUSA as well as our Progressive's policy in general have been aids to those regimes. When Kruschev said "We will bury you" he understood the direction Progressives were taking this country, and he knew well how our educational system, especially the academic, were disposed toward communist style views toward social and political outcomes.

Further, that useful idiocy has been extended by "great" or mediocre past Presidents in giving aid to Russia's partner China. Nixon started it and all the others, before Trump, continued and expanded it. They all allowed China to rape the wealth we produced, and aided it by things like granting China favored nation status which helped it into the WTO. The supposed useful idiot Trump is the only one that is seriously trying to reverse that.

That CIA expert, if you critically analyzed his analysis, showed Trump to be "presidential" in terms of his critique. Trump was being what all the pasts Presidents were in that respect. It was one of those many articles which actually, if critically looked at, contradicted your view of Trump. It even debunked your notion that Trump conspired with Putin. It showed that Trump's personality, as the "expert" saw it, would not have made that possible--he could only be a supposed "useful idiot" not a conspiratorial partner.

You just keep piling on those long and boring opinions without critically analyzing them. Just taking them as gospel.

Hopefully, better men than me will keep pushing back. I tire of fruitlessly going round and round with your relentless horse-blinder views.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, he did, and I must admit that it is becoming too tiresome to keep riding your anti-Trump merry go round.
He did not,"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

I don't have the energy that you do to keep going back and pointing out what was said by whom. And it is getting to the point with me to not even care. It will all continue to morph from one accusation, one investigation, one condemnation and pearl clutching OMG, one supposedly impeachable or criminal offense, that all fail, into the next one that you hope will work. It is obvious what's going on. Sea Dangles approach is looking more and more an attractive one.

Like jim said. It is not possible to talk to you. I have stopped reading your long cut and pastes because they have all been uncritical politically slanted opinions. I used to debunk them line by line for which you had no answer. The last one, except for a few shorter ones, that I read was by some retired CIA "expert" that analyzed Trump to be a useful idiot for Putin. It was amazing to me that you, or any analytically minded person, could not see that this "expert's" analysis could equally, or more so, show most of the Presidents since, and especially including, FDR to be useful idiots either of Russia or China. And that Trump is a piker as useful idiot compared to others.

I mean, TO THIS DAY, (so it is not merely an old so-called whataboutism), Franklin D. Roosevelt is considered to be the Democrats greatest President. And yet he was by far, indisputably and demonstrably, the most egregious useful idiot for the Soviet Union that occupied the Oval Office. His policies were directly responsible for handing over Eastern Europe to Russia and eventually China into the soviet sphere.

And, as far as policies that are useful to those communist regimes, The Democrat Party association with the CPUSA as well as our Progressive's policy in general have been aids to those regimes. When Kruschev said "We will bury you" he understood the direction Progressives were taking this country, and he knew well how our educational system, especially the academic, were disposed toward communist style views toward social and political outcomes.

Further, that useful idiocy has been extended by "great" or mediocre past Presidents in giving aid to Russia's partner China. Nixon started it and all the others, before Trump, continued and expanded it. They all allowed China to rape the wealth we produced, and aided it by things like granting China favored nation status which helped it into the WTO. The supposed useful idiot Trump is the only one that is seriously trying to reverse that.

That CIA expert, if you critically analyzed his analysis, showed Trump to be "presidential" in terms of his critique. Trump was being what all the pasts Presidents were in that respect. It was one of those many articles which actually, if critically looked at, contradicted your view of Trump. It even debunked your notion that Trump conspired with Putin. It showed that Trump's personality, as the "expert" saw it, would not have made that possible--he could only be a supposed "useful idiot" not a conspiratorial partner.

You just keep piling on those long and boring opinions without critically analyzing them. Just taking them as gospel.

Hopefully, better men than me will keep pushing back. I tire of fruitlessly going round and round with your relentless horse-blinder views.

Your belief, like Floridamans that we are better off alone against the world is foolish.

The John Birch Society went out in the 70s, perhaps you can revive it, I hope not.

We cannot singlehandedly force anyone to do anything. Floridaman is currently claiming that we might not honor NATO treaties, specifically article 5. We are the only ones who have ever called for help based on that and received it and more.
Next time will likely be different.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

I have only two requirements from the Democratic nominee. First, he or she must not be obviously mentally unstable.

good luck with that one

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

He did not,"The president informed every department for which we sought records — the State Dept. the Office of Management and Budget ... the Defense Department, his own White House personnel — to refuse to turn over a single document."

When I said he did I was referring to the various documented statements he and Zelensky and other Repubs have said, not to documents that he has a legal right to keep private.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Your belief, like Floridamans that we are better off alone against the world is foolish.

It is foolish to believe that there is this whole world out there against us. Or that what there is of such a world is unified within itself. There have always been disagreements between members in the alliance. Trump has done nothing to weaken that alliance. By demanding that the members pull their own weight, he may be strengthening it.

The John Birch Society went out in the 70s, perhaps you can revive it, I hope not.

I'm not interested, thanks for mentioning it though.

We cannot singlehandedly force anyone to do anything. Floridaman is currently claiming that we might not honor NATO treaties, specifically article 5. We are the only ones who have ever called for help based on that and received it and more.
Next time will likely be different.

Has Trump made a current claim about article 5. In 2017 he made a strong commitment to it in his Poland speech. He is known to give seemingly different (at least in the brains of his critics)"signals" for strategic purposes. He has criticized NATO's effectiveness and its members lack of commitment to paying their share, but I don't think he has ever specifically said that we would not commit to article 5.
If he has, as you say, "currently" that we would not honor it, when was that? "Might not" does not carry much weight since he, as I said, gives off different signals for strategic (bluffs to get desired action) reasons.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Has Trump made a current claim about article 5. In 2017 he made a strong commitment to it in his Poland speech. He is known to give seemingly different (at least in the brains of his critics)"signals" for strategic purposes. He has criticized NATO's effectiveness and its members lack of commitment to paying their share, but I don't think he has ever specifically said that we would not commit to article 5.
If he has, as you say, "currently" that we would not honor it, when was that? "Might not" does not carry much weight since he, as I said, gives off different signals for strategic (bluffs to get desired action) reasons.

Try today

It carries a lot of weight if you’re also a NATO signatory planning your foreign policy or a possible ally deciding what path to pursue.
That’s why we are the United States and this is what we stand for, do and expect. The world knew that for decades, the last administration faltered and this one has thrown it away.
A fickle feckless friend is worth little more than nothing.
Never know when those bonespurs are gonna act up.
And don’t dream that the diplomats of the world didn’t see how Pompeo failed his staff, just as sleazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Try today

It carries a lot of weight if you’re also a NATO signatory planning your foreign policy or a possible ally deciding what path to pursue.
That’s why we are the United States and this is what we stand for, do and expect. The world knew that for decades, the last administration faltered and this one has thrown it away.
A fickle feckless friend is worth little more than nothing.
Never know when those bonespurs are gonna act up.
And don’t dream that the diplomats of the world didn’t see how Pompeo failed his staff, just as sleazy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did he say?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

What did he say?

Watch his pressers, you love those long verbose videos.

The other heads of state found his performance quite comical, he does love to get a laugh out of the crowd
This time he was the subject, again.
There’s a Floridaman tweet for that.
I’ll have to find it tomorrow to go with the clip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Watch his pressers, you love those long verbose videos.

The other heads of state found his performance quite comical, he does love to get a laugh out of the crowd
This time he was the subject, again.
There’s a Floridaman tweet for that.
I’ll have to find it tomorrow to go with the clip.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thanks man. This was great. Really helpful stuff. You really say a lot of very informative things. I feel embarrassed when my verbose videos are matched up next to your fantastic links, cuts and pastes, and general remarks like these here gems in this post.

Kudos, and best wishes. I will devoutly follow your wisdom and hope to become a better person.

[PaulS]

Well at least Pres. Trump has accomplished something he promised he would do - world leaders are no longer laughing at the US.