Trump attacks impeachment witness on Twitter, Democrats see intimidation

[bristolboy]

16 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

I'm fond of saying that there is a reality that exists which is utterly consistent, makes no exceptions, and operates as it does despite anyone's beliefs about it.  Throughout time men, through their visions, have glimpsed the truth of that reality.  As, I believe, many of America's forefathers have, shown by the wisdom they exercised in order to create the United States of America.  All men are created equal is one such foundational truth of all realities.  Of all of the great quotes perhaps my favourite is one by Samuel Adams.  Because to me this quote frames the drama of these current times perfectly.

 

“Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.”

 

Reality's truths have been the basis for what man calls morals.  And too many, in my opinion, are separating further and further from those truths.  I believe that separation is what Adams meant by corrupt.  Truth has become so twisted that what is left is a corruption of truth.  People who, for instance, now deny even their own biological heritage.

 

I don't believe in leaders nor do I seek them.  My life is my own to lead and I look to no other to do that for me.  I only support Trump insofar as I believe he will fight corruption.  And yes, on both sides.  Isn't it evident that those who fight him are those who are the most corrupt and have much to lose (including their heads in some cases)?  It is to me.

The guy who pleaded no contest to fraud charges and paid out 25 million is a fighter against corruption?

The guy who used his own charity to pay his private expenses and paid a 2 million dollar fine for it is a fighter against corruption?

[bristolboy]

21 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Well then, you're admitting that you believe President Zelensky was lying.  You won't believe he spoke the truth in all of the interviews he gave to all of the press agencies.

 

Well, to put it another way, since it's not a question that you want to see Trump impeached and removed from office then you cannot, cannot believe President Zelensky spoke the truth.  Because to do so you would then no longer be able to argue for impeachment.  Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively?

 

This is why I posted earlier:

 

To slightly rephrase an Upton Sinclair quote:  "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary bias and political leanings depends upon his not understanding it."

 

Do you understand the truth of that statement, bristolboy?  I sure do.  And so do a whole lot of other people on these threads.

 

And since the truth is opposite your desire then by hook or crook you will lie, cheat or steal or do anything else that is required to squash the truth.  This is how deranged the left is.  They are willing to destroy America as long as they can get Trump.

 

Everyone knows it, bristolboy.  It's not a secret.  It's all out in the open.

 

 

Talk about motivated reasoning. Wouldn't those same considerations apply to someone who believed Zelensky told the truth? And of course that only works as a question in isolation from reality. In reality, everyone knows how vindictive and prone to rash actions Trump is. So it takes a huge amount of disingenousness to ignore that. Those of us like Zelensky who live in the real world know what Trump is like. Not only vindictive and subject to rash actions, but also someone who has a great deal of faith in Vladimir Putin. Remember when he took Putin's word that Russia was not surreptitiously and massively involved in the runup to the US elections? Has Trump ever said a harsh word about the massively corrupt kleptocratic Putin? Whereas he's said many harsh things about Western European leaders. What rational person who desperately needs US support would say something that is overwhelmingly likely - let's face it, a sure bet - to antagonize Trump and endanger his nation? A nation that has lost 13,000 people to Russian soldiers and their allies? 

It's clear you need a refresher so here's the definition of disingenuous:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

https://www.google.com/search?q=disengenuous&oq=disengenuous&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.9160j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

unless of course, you don't actually know that Trump is vindictive or that he's a big fan of Vladimir Putin.

[bristolboy]

23 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Opposition lawyers discredit hostile witnesses all the time.

Trump just pointed out her unimpressive record...how's this intimidation?

If anything it should cause her to be more determined to get him.

 

 

Her unimpressive record?

She actually helped dislodge corrupt officials from the Ukrainian national gas company. it used to be a drain on the government. Now it's contributing 15% of total government revenues.

As for his moronic assertion that the situation in Somalia was somehow partly her fault, it shows to show how bizarrely ignorant Trump is.

[mtls2005]

Just when one thought things couldn't get worse for the president...

 

LA GOP Governor candidate Rispone loses...the president went to LA three times in the last five weeks.

 

the president visited Walter Reed Hospital, for what appears to be an unplanned visit. We're told he had a "down day" and wanted to get a jump on his annual physical.

 

 

 

What's the over/under on Sondland getting Immunity or Taking the Fifth?

 

 

[bendejo]

38 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Oh and whilst we are are on the subject of berating witnesses, please keep in mind that John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mick Mulvaney himself and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget (who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry) have all refused congressional subpoenas to impear at the impeachment hearings. This is on top of the scores of other Trump acolytes who have refused to appear at the hearings.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trumps doing a pretty damning job of hiding everyone who has first hand knowledge of all these conversations. Now I wonder why that could be? 

Yes, let's hear their defense and let's get this mess over with.  What is the rationale for blocking their testimony?

 

 

[chokrai]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Talk about motivated reasoning. Wouldn't those same considerations apply to someone who believed Zelensky told the truth? And of course that only works as a question in isolation from reality. In reality, everyone knows how vindictive and prone to rash actions Trump is. So it takes a huge amount of disingenousness to ignore that. Those of us like Zelensky who live in the real world know what Trump is like. Not only vindictive and subject to rash actions, but also someone who has a great deal of faith in Vladimir Putin. Remember when he took Putin's word that Russia was not surreptitiously and massively involved in the runup to the US elections? Has Trump ever said a harsh word about the massively corrupt kleptocratic Putin? Whereas he's said many harsh things about Western European leaders. What rational person who desperately needs US support would say something that is overwhelmingly likely - let's face it, a sure bet - to antagonize Trump and endanger his nation? A nation that has lost 13,000 people to Russian soldiers and their allies? 

It's clear you need a refresher so here's the definition of disingenuous:

not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

https://www.google.com/search?q=disengenuous&oq=disengenuous&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l7.9160j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

unless of course, you don't actually know that Trump is vindictive or that he's a big fan of Vladimir Putin.

You watch too much CNN.

[bristolboy]

On 11/16/2019 at 8:50 AM, Thainesss said:

 

The only way this makes sense is if you completely ignore the events preceding Trumps election, which I admit would be a favorable point of view for the left to have because it absolves them of any blame, but it would be a false position to have. Politics in the USA has been in a steady decline for over a decade.

Ever since Americans elected that damned Kenyan muslim socialist. Just lucky for the USA that Trump led the birther investigation. Or the truth would never have come out.

[riclag]

4 hours ago, hyku1147 said:

More hearsay:

"Williams told lawmakers that the word "Burisma" appeared in her notes of the July 25 call, though it did not appear in the memorandum of the conversation released by the White House in September. The transcript indicates that Williams initially told lawmakers that Trump mentioned Burisma to Zelensky, but a letter from her attorney following the deposition states that Williams' "recollection had been incorrect" and Zelensky mentioned Burisma to Trump."

 

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-nsc-official-says-he-was-worried-damaging-trump-ukraine-call-would-leak-was-told-eu-envoy-sondland-was-a-problem

This quote sums up the shiff brigade efforts to date

"The only reaction coming from House Democrats, who continue to use PR firms and DCCC polling data to push their conspiracy theories as facts, seems to be that of disappointment. Everything so far is about the temperature of the room, and that the testimony was 'technical' and didn’t get them what they wanted," the official said. "It’s looking like Democrats are now desperate to sell any narrative that’ll justify what most Americans recognize has been an extreme abuse of Congress’ powers".

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-nsc-official-says-he-was-worried-damaging-trump-ukraine-call-would-leak-was-told-eu-envoy-sondland-was-a-problem

 

Because of this strong devious opposition to a POTUS, in my opinion was exactly why Hamilton as one of the founding fathers of the constitution, god bless his soul,instituted the Senate to oversee the final process of impeachment, a trial . The check and balance if you will of the peoples house!

 

[stevenl]

44 minutes ago, chokrai said:

You watch too much CNN.

Great argument.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

"The foreign government to which an ambassador is assigned must first approve the person."

Except, of course, she had already been approved. So totally irrelevant.

And you think that the President has carte blanche to say whatever he likes to another head of state? Is it okay to ask for a bribe, for instance?

You missed my point, or ran behind the shed to avoid it. Of course Yovanovitch was already approved, by Obama, just 2 months before the 2016 presidential election. 

 

My point was broad, all ambassadors, all nations. Ambassadors are agreed upon between states and would normally necessitate discussion between heads of state when changes are made. So why the inuendo that doing so is wrong? It is not. Reasons for a change is shoptalk between nations, I would expect it to be honest between friendly states.

 

I'm sure she is a cool lady, any ambassador to Kyrgyzstan would be, but her testimony was pure acting, particularity all the feelings part.

[Tippaporn]

1 hour ago, johnnybangkok said:

Do you understand the hypocrisy of your argument 'Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively? when you in turn constantly argue with very little fairness and absolutely no objectivity?

Evidence is mounting on a daily basis but you (and we are not holding our breath you ever will) have never said a bad word against Trump and the rest of his mafia gang. Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk and still you berate, obfuscate and deflect along an increasingly desperate GOP's standard line (where's the whistleblower; it's all hearsay; but, but The Bidens). Yovanovitch has testified under oath that she was pulled back to Washington to clear the way for Trump allies to persuade Ukraine to launch corruption probes into Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Bill Taylor has confirmed there was a conversation between Sondland and Trump overheard from a staffer (David Holmes) and in turn Holmes has also testified under oath that he was present when Trump had asked Sondland “So, he’s going to do the investigation?” to which Sondland responded by saying that Zelensky “loves your ass,” that he would pursue the investigation, and that he would do “anything you ask him to.” Now I'm sure you will probably argue (yet again) that this is second hand hearsay as Holmes wasn't actually on the call which leads us nicely to 'memory man' Gordon Sondland.

This is going to be the the Dems star witness. A Trump appointee and a man who was actually on the calls and is deep, deep in the middle of it all. Now we already know that Sondland has changed his tune in a new, revised statement were he has testified “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” but since he has also categorily denied there was any 'quid pro quo/bribery' in previous statements it will be super interesting to see which story he will stick to, especially now there is a clear threat of perjury. Personally I think he has no choice now other than to come completely clean and honestly tell the world what was actually said in those calls.

So berate Yovanovitch all you want for feeling threatened about Trumps tweets (like that's the important part of all of this) or for Bill Talyor only having 'hearsay' evidence because, you know, he wasn't actually on the call but I wonder how you are going to defend Trump when Sondland confirms all the other witness testimonies are true and accurate?  

Oh and whilst we are are on the subject of berating witnesses, please keep in mind that John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mick Mulvaney himself and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget (who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry) have all refused congressional subpoenas to impear at the impeachment hearings. This is on top of the scores of other Trump acolytes who have refused to appear at the hearings.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trumps doing a pretty damning job of hiding everyone who has first hand knowledge of all these conversations. Now I wonder why that could be? 

 

  

My response:  Yawn.

 

Listen johnny, I'm happy that you have your hopes up.  The higher you get them the more painful the landing will be.

 

All in all you are eager to believe any 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand witness testimony to be absolute truth.  Well, as long as it fits your narrative.  Never question it or the anomalies (Yovanovitch has been caught lying).  President Zelensky's testimony?  A guy with 1st hand knowledge and the subject of the quid pro quo.  Nah, he's lying.  Place your bets as you see fit.

 

My bet is still the same.  I stand by my post.

[JHolmesJr]

14 minutes ago, rabas said:

Of course Yovanovitch was already approved, by Obama, just 2 months before the 2016 presidential election. 

AKA

A Trojan horse.

She needed to go.

Edited November 17, 2019 by JHolmesJr

[heybruce]

9 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

AKA

A Trojan horse.

She needed to go.

Funny, I feel the same way about Putin's puppet.

AKA

Donald Trump.  He needs to go.

[stevenl]

14 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

My response:  Yawn.

Impressive answer.

[Sujo]

Defenders of trump change their tune every day that evidence emerges.

 

He did nothing wrong

No quid pro quo

All hearsay

 

Then in the end all the evidence will be to his guilt and senate will be left with its final defence.

 

Ok he did it, its bad, but not enough to remove him from office. That is all they can do.

[Farangwithaplan]

On 11/16/2019 at 12:29 PM, NanLaew said:

You can pull as many synonyms out of your butt as your search engine permits but you unsurprisingly fail to consider the TIMING of his Twitter rant when it comes to POSSIBLE intimidation.

And the position and power that the sender holds.

 

Seriously, anyone who is arguing against that fact this was blatant intimidation is either disturbed or lacking social and emotional norms required for modern integration in society.

 

Might explain why they hide in Thailand.

 

[Tippaporn]

2 hours ago, johnnybangkok said:

Do you understand the hypocrisy of your argument 'Do you understand that you are prohibited, due to your single focus for impeachment, to argue fairly or objectively? when you in turn constantly argue with very little fairness and absolutely no objectivity?

Evidence is mounting on a daily basis but you (and we are not holding our breath you ever will) have never said a bad word against Trump and the rest of his mafia gang. Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk and still you berate, obfuscate and deflect along an increasingly desperate GOP's standard line (where's the whistleblower; it's all hearsay; but, but The Bidens). Yovanovitch has testified under oath that she was pulled back to Washington to clear the way for Trump allies to persuade Ukraine to launch corruption probes into Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Bill Taylor has confirmed there was a conversation between Sondland and Trump overheard from a staffer (David Holmes) and in turn Holmes has also testified under oath that he was present when Trump had asked Sondland “So, he’s going to do the investigation?” to which Sondland responded by saying that Zelensky “loves your ass,” that he would pursue the investigation, and that he would do “anything you ask him to.” Now I'm sure you will probably argue (yet again) that this is second hand hearsay as Holmes wasn't actually on the call which leads us nicely to 'memory man' Gordon Sondland.

This is going to be the the Dems star witness. A Trump appointee and a man who was actually on the calls and is deep, deep in the middle of it all. Now we already know that Sondland has changed his tune in a new, revised statement were he has testified “I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” but since he has also categorily denied there was any 'quid pro quo/bribery' in previous statements it will be super interesting to see which story he will stick to, especially now there is a clear threat of perjury. Personally I think he has no choice now other than to come completely clean and honestly tell the world what was actually said in those calls.

So berate Yovanovitch all you want for feeling threatened about Trumps tweets (like that's the important part of all of this) or for Bill Talyor only having 'hearsay' evidence because, you know, he wasn't actually on the call but I wonder how you are going to defend Trump when Sondland confirms all the other witness testimonies are true and accurate?  

Oh and whilst we are are on the subject of berating witnesses, please keep in mind that John Eisenberg, legal adviser to the National Security Council, his deputy, Michael Ellis, Robert Blair, a top aide to acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, Mick Mulvaney himself and Brian McCormack, an aide at the White House Office of Management and Budget (who previously worked for Energy Secretary Rick Perry) have all refused congressional subpoenas to impear at the impeachment hearings. This is on top of the scores of other Trump acolytes who have refused to appear at the hearings.

For someone with nothing to hide, Trumps doing a pretty damning job of hiding everyone who has first hand knowledge of all these conversations. Now I wonder why that could be? 

 

 

 

JW INVESTIGATES IF OUSTED UKRAINE AMBASSADOR ORDERED STATE DEPT. TO MONITOR JOURNALISTS, TRUMP ALLIES

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/jw-investigates-if-ousted-ukraine-ambassador-ordered-state-dept-to-monitor-journalists-trump-allies-4/

 

Some of the people allegedly being monitored:

 

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

 

What some more?

 

Report: Yovanovitch Committed Perjury According To Newly Discovered Emails

 

https://www.oann.com/report-yovanovitch-committed-perjury-according-to-newly-discovered-emails/

 

What was it you wrote:  ". . . Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk . . ."

 

They're impeccable because you're told by the MSM and Schiff that they're impeccable.  Most people don't know diddly squat about what some of these witnesses are really about.  And given that they take the witnesses at face value and will blindly accept any of their testimony as God honest truth.  LOL

 

I wouldn't give her a standing ovation.  I'd be looking at her with a magnifying glass.

 

And who the whistle blower is is irrelevant.  Yeah, right.

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Impressive answer.

Thank you.

[candide]

2 hours ago, bristolboy said:

The guy who pleaded no contest to fraud charges and paid out 25 million is a fighter against corruption?

The guy who used his own charity to pay his private expenses and paid a 2 million dollar fine for it is a fighter against corruption?

Not to mention his friend Parnas....

"Prosecutors allege Parnas and Fruman illegally funded Republican politicians and campaigns with money from foreign nationals. Prosecutors also say the pair funneled $325,000 into Trump's flagship super PAC, America First Action......"

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/15/politics/parnas-trump-special-mission-ukraine/index.html

 

[candide]

6 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

JW INVESTIGATES IF OUSTED UKRAINE AMBASSADOR ORDERED STATE DEPT. TO MONITOR JOURNALISTS, TRUMP ALLIES

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/jw-investigates-if-ousted-ukraine-ambassador-ordered-state-dept-to-monitor-journalists-trump-allies-4/

 

Some of the people allegedly being monitored:

 

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

 

What some more?

 

Report: Yovanovitch Committed Perjury According To Newly Discovered Emails

 

https://www.oann.com/report-yovanovitch-committed-perjury-according-to-newly-discovered-emails/

 

What was it you wrote:  ". . . Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk . . ."

 

They're impeccable because you're told by the MSM and Schiff that they're impeccable.  Most people don't know diddly squat about what some of these witnesses are really about.  And given that they take the witnesses at face value and will blindly accept any of their testimony as God honest truth.  LOL

 

I wouldn't give her a standing ovation.  I'd be looking at her with a magnifying glass.

 

And who the whistle blower is is irrelevant.  Yeah, right.

From very reliable sources! ????

"Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 10/24/2019)"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

 

"Overall, we rate One America News Far right biased based on story selection that consistently favors the Right and Mixed for factual reporting due to promotion of conspiracies, lack of sourcing and a few failed fact checks. (10/12/2016) (D. Van Zandt 10/10/2019)"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/

[Chomper Higgot]

8 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

JW INVESTIGATES IF OUSTED UKRAINE AMBASSADOR ORDERED STATE DEPT. TO MONITOR JOURNALISTS, TRUMP ALLIES

 

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-releases/jw-investigates-if-ousted-ukraine-ambassador-ordered-state-dept-to-monitor-journalists-trump-allies-4/

 

Some of the people allegedly being monitored:

 

Jack Posobiec

Donald Trump Jr.

Laura Ingraham

Sean Hannity

Michael McFaul (Obama’s ambassador to Russia)

Dan Bongino

Ryan Saavedra

Rudy Giuliani

Sebastian Gorka

John Solomon

Lou Dobbs

Pamella Geller

Sara Carter

 

What some more?

 

Report: Yovanovitch Committed Perjury According To Newly Discovered Emails

 

https://www.oann.com/report-yovanovitch-committed-perjury-according-to-newly-discovered-emails/

 

What was it you wrote:  ". . . Career dipomats of impeccable service to the US are putting their careers and their personal safety at risk . . ."

 

They're impeccable because you're told by the MSM and Schiff that they're impeccable.  Most people don't know diddly squat about what some of these witnesses are really about.  And given that they take the witnesses at face value and will blindly accept any of their testimony as God honest truth.  LOL

 

I wouldn't give her a standing ovation.  I'd be looking at her with a magnifying glass.

 

And who the whistle blower is is irrelevant.  Yeah, right.

Now he’s posting garbage from the far right propaganda channel ‘One America News Network’.

 

 

[Tippaporn]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

From very reliable sources! ????

"Overall, we rate Judicial Watch Questionable based on extreme right wing bias, promotion of conspiracy theories and a very poor fact check record. (7/19/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 10/24/2019)"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/judicial-watch/

 

"Overall, we rate One America News Far right biased based on story selection that consistently favors the Right and Mixed for factual reporting due to promotion of conspiracies, lack of sourcing and a few failed fact checks. (10/12/2016) (D. Van Zandt 10/10/2019)"

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/one-america-news-network/

 

7 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Now he’s posting garbage from the far right propaganda channel ‘One America News Network’.

 

 

You guys never disappoint.  Totally reliable.  And punctual.  I wish my watch worked as well.

 

Can't argue with the information then attack the source.  Same as it ever was.

[rabas]

On 11/16/2019 at 12:29 PM, NanLaew said:

You can pull as many synonyms out of your butt as your search engine permits but you unsurprisingly fail to consider the TIMING of his Twitter rant when it comes to POSSIBLE intimidation.

 

Timing. How on Earth can a tweet intimidate a witness who is already sitting in a chamber presenting her testimony? How? If and only if the Democrats read it to her live during her testimony. Cromagnon man wept.

 

[candide]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

You should start a new thread to gloat about this sideshow development that has nothing to do with this

topic, which is about something entirely different.

 

Anyway, Bel Edwards was narrowly favored to win before voting commenced...so hardly an upset ...or a repudiation of Trump, as you're rather desperately trying to suggest.

From Fox News..

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-casts-louisiana-vote-as-impeachment-referendum

[Opl]

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

My response:  Yawn.

 

Listen johnny, I'm happy that you have your hopes up.  The higher you get them the more painful the landing will be.

 

All in all you are eager to believe any 2nd, 3rd, 4th hand witness testimony to be absolute truth.  Well, as long as it fits your narrative.  Never question it or the anomalies (Yovanovitch has been caught lying).  President Zelensky's testimony?  A guy with 1st hand knowledge and the subject of the quid pro quo.  Nah, he's lying.  Place your bets as you see fit.

 

My bet is still the same.  I stand by my post.

So any 2nd, 3rd, 4th witness testimony can't reflect the truth… that's what you think…. then how come that 1rst witnesses such as M. Cohen, R. Stone etc...were caught lying under oath to protect Trump - as they argued… or do they  just all have poor recollection? Not mentioning Trump himself, LOL, his lawyers won't let him get interviewed… 

 

[johnnybangkok]

59 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You guys never disappoint.  Totally reliable.  And punctual.  I wish my watch worked as well.

 

Can't argue with the information then attack the source.  Same as it ever was.

We can certainly argue the information especially because of the source. Post verifiable facts from legitimate sources and not your usual conspiracy nonsense and you might have a chance to be taken seriously. Why don’t you get that? And please don’t come back with some nonsense about us not opening our minds to “different” sources. That would be a “yawn”. 

Edited November 17, 2019 by johnnybangkok

[JHolmesJr]

Boo hoooo...poor Marie Y.

I seem to remember Obama firing all politically appointed ambassadors and asking them to vacate their posts before he took office.

 

Granted Marie is foreign service...but she clearly wasn't seen as competent.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 by JHolmesJr

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Boo hoooo...poor Marie Y.

I seem to remember Obama firing all politically appointed ambassadors and asking them to vacate their posts before he took office.

 

But but but...Obama is different. ????

Did obama go public slamming their character, and continuing to do so whilst they do their sworn duty and giving evidence?

 

Trump could have simply fired her but he just couldnt do that could he, he had to try and denigrate her. 

 

Even repubs in congress thanked her for the great work she did for the US.

 

Trump, all class, not.

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Boo hoooo...poor Marie Y.

I seem to remember Obama firing all politically appointed ambassadors and asking them to vacate their posts before he took office.

 

Granted Marie is foreign service...but she clearly wasn't seen as competent.

 

 

Well not by Trump.

But given that his information about Yovanovich came via Parnas and Fruman, 2 flunkies who were working for Dmytro Firtash, the corrupt oligarch who lost his access to literally billions of dollars thanks in part to her efforts, what would you expect? And all 3 of those parties are currently under indictment.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

 

You guys never disappoint.  Totally reliable.  And punctual.  I wish my watch worked as well.

 

Can't argue with the information then attack the source.  Same as it ever was.

I did argue with the information. Still waiting for a reply from you.