Ukrainegate - Page 60 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Atlantis
#15049892
Stormsmith wrote:I wonder if Rudy Giuliani has bull dozer tracks on his back yet .


The buck ends with Rudy Giuliani. That's convenient because he can refuse to testify on the basis of attorney/client privilege. Giuliani is the firewall between Trump and the impeachment investigation.

The last three witnesses were very careful not to directly incriminate Trump because they know that Trump would destroy them and that there is nothing that can protect them as long as Trump is in power.

They were walking a thin line between trying to avoid putting the blame directly on Trump, on the one hand, and trying to save their own skin, on the other hand. They solved this dilemma by claiming that they believed it was only about investigating Burisma and that it had nothing to do with the Bidens. That is of course absurd because nobody in the US has any interest in Burisma other than the fact that Hunter Biden worked for the company. The relation between the Bidens and Burisma was in the media in May at the latest. Anybody having anything to do with Ukraine would have read about it.

They did however indirectly implicate Trump by stating that getting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens as a quid pro quo would have been wrong. Trump in his June 25th phone call with Zelensky made clear that it was about the Bidens, when they talked about Burisma. Thus, all indirectly condemned Trump.
User avatar
By Tainari88
#15049893
blackjack21 wrote:
He's directly opposing investigating Ukraine's interference into the 2016 election. That's obstruction of justice.


Relampaguito, you did what I predicted. That is good. I come up with strategies against my opponents who are predictable. Your prez is unpredictable. But you are not.

The Democrats are going after the prez....the deep state people don't like your unpredictable prez. They are going to frame him and or set him up. He is going to be exposed.

How does this play out in the streets of the USA? I want your prediction Senor Blackjack of how the base of the deplorables are going to feel when the Democrats come up with a Deep State backing scheme of impeachment?

BTW, I do like your quotes from Biden. It goes to show where these liberals heads are at....but they are out in full force, ready to frame up Donny.

If they are successful? What is the next Plan B?

If they are not successful? I think Donny sails into victory for another 4 years?

Esquivastes la pregunta candente. That did not surprise me.

;)

Are you back to your full Relampagazo capacities now? Si o no?

Es un 'si'o es un 'no'?
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15049899
Atlantis wrote:That is of course absurd because nobody in the US has any interest in Burisma other than the fact that Hunter Biden worked for the company.

Burisma wants US government funds via USAID, which is likely why they hired Hunter Biden. So there corruption issues were of interest to the US government.

Tainari88 wrote:....the deep state people don't like your unpredictable prez. They are going to frame him and or set him up. He is going to be exposed.

That is utterly predictable as well. They've been trying this for three years now, and we're pretty much laughing at them at this point. The ratings for the impeachment hearings are a fraction of what they were for the Comey hearings. People know that Schiff is just jerking their chains now. There are some die hards who watch these hearings. I just wait for the summation, because it's time consuming and so much of it is bullshit.

Tainari88 wrote:I want your prediction Senor Blackjack of how the base of the deplorables are going to feel when the Democrats come up with a Deep State backing scheme of impeachment?

They already have deep state backing for impeachment. They've had it since before the election. The problem is that they can't get the American people behind them. What they are doing now is trying to kill off the investigation into their own wrongdoing. Durham has got them soiling their underwear, because he has a grand jury now, which means indictments are likely to follow. Apparently, the IG report is more than 500 pages too. They have been doing this stuff for decades, but nobody has ever pushed back.

You know that Hillary Clinton financed the dossier that led to the Mueller investigation, right? Nobody was ever supposed to find out. Devin Nunes put the whole thing together by issuing subpoenas for banking records. Once that was done, then a whole bunch of other things came into view: that Nellie Ohr was working for Fusion GPS, that Natalyia Veselnitskaya was denied a visa by the State Department but given an immigration parole by the DoJ, that she met with Fusion GPS before and after the meeting with Trump Jr., and on and on. The big part of the story, however, is that CIA and FBI folks had the dossier and used it to launch a counterintelligence investigation into the Trump campaign knowing that: 1) the dossier was false; and 2) it was financed by Hillary Clinton's campaign. That's the subject of a criminal investigation now.

If they can't take Trump down, Trump will take them down. Those are the stakes.

So how does it play out? Look at how many people come to Trump rallies versus any other politician in the US. He packs the house with people outside waiting. They still vote for who they want to vote for--as you saw in Kentucky and Louisiana governors races. A third of those people are Democrats and independents. It's that popularity that undermines the inherent unpopularity of the deep state from using the media to spread propaganda to effect public sentiment. This would work against even someone pretty formidable like Ted Cruz.

Tainari88 wrote:If they are successful? What is the next Plan B?

Probably a market crash and a recession. The Democrats can't do what they are promising if they win, because there isn't enough money to do something like Medicare for all. So the Democrats will be as disappointed as Republican voters were when the Republican Congress ended up failing to repeal ObamaCare.

Tainari88 wrote:Are you back to your full Relampagazo capacities now? Si o no?

Not quite yet. I had a 5:00 am flight this morning. I also may go out to a friends ranch this weekend to shoot guns and hang out. Hanging out with real people is preferable to text. But soon. Very soon. I may take next week off. Perhaps we can have the tormenta eléctrica next week?
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15049915
late wrote:The UCMJ requires a soldier to report problems. The problem has to meet certain criteria, and be reported to the relevant authority.

All of which Vindman did.

Not exactly. As a retired military veteran, I see LTC Vindman's response that of an ass-kisser, who to him a request for a favor from a superior is an order and a demand. Vindman seems to have also lost respect for his civilian chain of command.

Vindman Broke Chain of Command to Get Word Out of Trump-Zelensky Call

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified on Tuesday that he bypassed his chain of command and went directly to the National Security Council’s legal counsel to raise his concerns about President Donald Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The implication appears to be that Vindman had an agenda, which was only strengthened by his claim in his opening statement that Trump demanded Zelensky open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, though according to the White House’s partial transcript, the commander in chief did no such thing.

Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio — an Army Reserve officer and Iraq war veteran — and fellow Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan pressed Vindman on his decision not to follow the chain of command.

“In your deposition you emphasize the importance of chain of command. You were a direct report to Dr. Fiona Hill and then Mr. Tim Morrison and they were your seniors, correct?” Wenstrup asked Vindman, who is currently serving on the NSC staff at the White House.

“That is correct,” the officer answered.

“When you had concerns about the 7/25 call between the two presidents, you didn’t go to Mr. Morrison about that, did you?” Wenstrup asked.

“I immediately went to John Eisenberg, the [NSC’s] lead legal counsel,” Vindman responded.

“That doesn’t seem like chain of command,” the GOP lawmaker said.

Vindman then said he attempted to convey his concerns to Morrison, but was not able to do so.

Wenstrup responded by reading from the officer’s closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee from late last month.

“‘I forwarded my concerns through the chain of command, and the seniors then decide the action to take,'” the congressman said, quoting Vindman.

Wenstrup confirmed again that Vindman had not followed his chain of command: In other words, his earlier testimony was false.

The lawmaker then delivered a final blow, pointing out that Vindman had the opportunity to offer his own edits to the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky.

In those edits, the officer never used the word “demand” to describe Trump’s requests during the call, but that is how Vindman characterized the president’s conversation in his opening statement to the committee on Tuesday.

“It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent,” Vindman said, according to Politico.

Wenstrup asked, “In your edits did you insist that the word ‘demand’ be put into the transcription?”

“I did not,” Vindman answered.

“But you did say that in your opening statement today,” Wenstrup pointed out before his time for questioning ended.

Jordan also delved into Vindman’s decision not to follow the chain of command.

“It was an extremely busy week,” the officer explained.

“I attempted to try to talk to Mr. Morrison. That didn’t happen before I received instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further.”

Jordan continued to press Vindman.

“The lawyer told you, ‘Don’t talk to any other people,'” the Ohio Republican said. “And you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talked to your brother, you talked to the lawyers, you talked to [Deputy Assistant] Secretary [of State George] Kent, and you talked to the one guy Adam Schiff won’t let you tell us who he is.”

Vindman insisted he did his job and that he stopped talking to others after Eisenberg instructed him to do so.

So Vindman talked to the NSC lawyer and perhaps the whistleblower or an associate of that person — since Schiff won’t let him tell the committee who he is — but did not raise the issue to his superiors.

Once again it appears Schiff has called another witness with an ax to grind, but who could offer no real proof of wrongdoing by the president.

https://www.westernjournal.com/vindman- ... nsky-call/
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15049922
Atlantis wrote:The buck ends with Rudy Giuliani. That's convenient because he can refuse to testify on the basis of attorney/client privilege. Giuliani is the firewall between Trump and the impeachment investigation.

The lying "shifty" Adam Schiff is determined to impeach the President, hook or crook. I believe it is too late for the Democrats not to bring this up for a full vote in the House of Representatives. But they really don't have anything that would be serious enough to remove him from office, so if it gets to the Senate, President trump will be acquitted.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15049925
Hindsite wrote:Not exactly. As a retired military veteran, I see LTC Vindman's response that of an ass-kisser, who to him a request for a favor from a superior is an order and a demand. Vindman seems to have also lost respect for his civilian chain of command.

Vindman Broke Chain of Command to Get Word Out of Trump-Zelensky Call

Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified on Tuesday that he bypassed his chain of command and went directly to the National Security Council’s legal counsel to raise his concerns about President Donald Trump’s July phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

The implication appears to be that Vindman had an agenda, which was only strengthened by his claim in his opening statement that Trump demanded Zelensky open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden, though according to the White House’s partial transcript, the commander in chief did no such thing.

Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio — an Army Reserve officer and Iraq war veteran — and fellow Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan pressed Vindman on his decision not to follow the chain of command.

“In your deposition you emphasize the importance of chain of command. You were a direct report to Dr. Fiona Hill and then Mr. Tim Morrison and they were your seniors, correct?” Wenstrup asked Vindman, who is currently serving on the NSC staff at the White House.

“That is correct,” the officer answered.

“When you had concerns about the 7/25 call between the two presidents, you didn’t go to Mr. Morrison about that, did you?” Wenstrup asked.

“I immediately went to John Eisenberg, the [NSC’s] lead legal counsel,” Vindman responded.

“That doesn’t seem like chain of command,” the GOP lawmaker said.

Vindman then said he attempted to convey his concerns to Morrison, but was not able to do so.

Wenstrup responded by reading from the officer’s closed-door testimony before the House Intelligence Committee from late last month.

“‘I forwarded my concerns through the chain of command, and the seniors then decide the action to take,'” the congressman said, quoting Vindman.

Wenstrup confirmed again that Vindman had not followed his chain of command: In other words, his earlier testimony was false.

The lawmaker then delivered a final blow, pointing out that Vindman had the opportunity to offer his own edits to the transcript of Trump’s July 25 call with Zelensky.

In those edits, the officer never used the word “demand” to describe Trump’s requests during the call, but that is how Vindman characterized the president’s conversation in his opening statement to the committee on Tuesday.

“It is improper for the President of the United States to demand a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen and political opponent,” Vindman said, according to Politico.

Wenstrup asked, “In your edits did you insist that the word ‘demand’ be put into the transcription?”

“I did not,” Vindman answered.

“But you did say that in your opening statement today,” Wenstrup pointed out before his time for questioning ended.

Jordan also delved into Vindman’s decision not to follow the chain of command.

“It was an extremely busy week,” the officer explained.

“I attempted to try to talk to Mr. Morrison. That didn’t happen before I received instructions from John Eisenberg to not talk to anybody else any further.”

Jordan continued to press Vindman.

“The lawyer told you, ‘Don’t talk to any other people,'” the Ohio Republican said. “And you interpret that as not talking to your boss, but you talked to your brother, you talked to the lawyers, you talked to [Deputy Assistant] Secretary [of State George] Kent, and you talked to the one guy Adam Schiff won’t let you tell us who he is.”

Vindman insisted he did his job and that he stopped talking to others after Eisenberg instructed him to do so.

So Vindman talked to the NSC lawyer and perhaps the whistleblower or an associate of that person — since Schiff won’t let him tell the committee who he is — but did not raise the issue to his superiors.

Once again it appears Schiff has called another witness with an ax to grind, but who could offer no real proof of wrongdoing by the president.

https://www.westernjournal.com/vindman- ... nsky-call/


plus …… have you heard …… HE WORE HIS UNIFORM TO THE HEARING! :eek:
User avatar
By jimjam
#15049934
Even staunch Republicans predicted game over for Trump. “We now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery,” said Kenneth Starr, the prosecutor in the Bill Clinton impeachment. “I think articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven’t already been drawn up.”
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15049937
jimjam wrote:Even staunch Republicans predicted game over for Trump. “We now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery,” said Kenneth Starr, the prosecutor in the Bill Clinton impeachment. “I think articles of impeachment are being drawn up if they haven’t already been drawn up.”

Starr has egg on his face for that quote. Sondland was completely destroyed on cross-examination. He's no longer considered a credible witness, and I would guess his tenure as Ambassador to the EU will be short lived.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15049938
jimjam wrote:plus …… have you heard …… HE WORE HIS UNIFORM TO THE HEARING! :eek:

Yes, that was disgraceful behavior.
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15049939
blackjack21 wrote:Starr has egg on his face for that quote. Sondland was completely destroyed on cross-examination. He's no longer considered a credible witness, and I would guess his tenure as Ambassador to the EU will be short lived.

Sondland has too bad a memory for someone that never takes notes. He didn't look good by "presuming" he was a good mathematician either. :lol:
By late
#15049951
Hindsite wrote:
Not exactly. As a retired military veteran, I see LTC Vindman's response that of an ass-kisser, who to him a request for a favor from a superior is an order and a demand. Vindman seems to have also lost respect for his civilian chain of command.

Vindman Broke Chain of Command to Get Word Out of Trump-Zelensky Call





The Western Journal is very Right wing. I find their assertion dubious to the point of ridiculous. Working at that level, he has options. You would need a damn good reason why talking to that NSC lawyer is inappropriate, and you ought to know that is not something you have.

I see the Right wing howler monkeys are trying to keep Snopes busy parroting the same nonsense.

Seriously, try harder.
By Atlantis
#15049965
Hindsite wrote:Vindman Broke Chain of Command to Get Word Out of Trump-Zelensky Call


:lol:

If the Trump ass-kissers can pull their head out off his colon just for one sec. ...

Vindman did exactly what his superior Morrison did, he went to the legal advisers to consult about the legality of what he had heard.

Vindman, the newcomer, still believes in "American values" which most of his colleagues and superiors only pay lip service to. He believes in the American way, he believes in freedom, as absurd as that may seem, but that's what motivates him. That's why he wants to do the right thing. He naively takes at face value what all the rest just pretend to believe while behaving like pigs. They know how to make conversation and how to use a fork and a spoon on the table, while grabbing pussies under the table like animals.

blackjack21 wrote:When cross examined, it became clear that he presumed there was a quid pro quo (not that it would be criminal anyway), and that nobody on THE ENTIRE PLANET told him there was a quid pro quo.


That's what happens when you take one sentence out of 10 hours of hearings and pretend that there is nothing else. Jim Jordan didn't "cross-examine", he rattled off a series of wild unsubstantiated assumptions like a machine gun without even giving Sondland the chance to reply.

If you had listened to the hearings instead of getting your ready made opinions from Breitbart, you would have known that when you "put two and two together, you get four". Do you "presume" that you get four when you put two and two together? Or do you know it? We all know it for a fact, even if you try to distort the facts until you are blue in the face. We all know that there was an impeachable offense of quid pro quo.

I know the Trump clones have limited intellectual abilities. So they need to keep it simple. Repeat after Trump:

Image

Say it aloud:

I WANT NOTHING
I WANT NOTHING
NO QUID PRO QUO

4 syllables to a sentence, not more (@Beren, is going to love this). All in capital block letters. Now, can you manage that? Your chief did! Repeat until you think you get it right.
Now we move to the next stage, don't panic, you'll manage:

TELL ZELLINSKY TO DO THE RIGHT THING

Never mind the spelling. The chief writes it phonetically. That's alright. Nobody has to know weird foreign names. As long as the chief knows what he means, it's alright.

Now, we all know what that means. The only thing this can possibly mean to Donald J. Trump is that the president of Ukraine has to publicly

SMEAR DIRT ON BIDEN


Because Donald J. Trump does not care about corruption, just as he does not care about his Saudi friends dismembering journalists in foreign embassies. All he cares about is destroying anybody he thinks needs destroying. We are about to enter a terminal Stalinist phase, in which he attempts to destroy friend and foe at a whim. Throw them to the crocodiles. Welcome to the lowest circle of hell in cohabitation with Kim Jong-un and Idi Amin.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15049998
Atlantis wrote:Vindman did exactly what his superior Morrison did, he went to the legal advisers to consult about the legality of what he had heard.

Yes. However, he also communicated with Eric Ciaramella his personal assumptions--that Trump had made a demand. Ciaramella evidently believed everything he was told and filed a whistleblower complaint about activity that happened outside the IC based entirely upon hearsay and the conclusions of someone who wasn't a legal expert.

Atlantis wrote:Vindman, the newcomer, still believes in "American values" which most of his colleagues and superiors only pay lip service to. He believes in the American way, he believes in freedom, as absurd as that may seem, but that's what motivates him.

At no point would a person motivated by freedom and "American values" leak his conclusions of a diplomatic call to a CIA operative hostile to the president. That's a person motivated by partisan politics.

Atlantis wrote:That's why he wants to do the right thing.

Taking a legal complaint to a politically partisan CIA operative as a military guy about the contents of a phone call that pertains to diplomacy, not intelligence, is hardly the right thing to do.

Additionally, Vindman testified under oath that he did not know who the whistleblower was, and Adam Schiff has asserted the same thing many times (and Jim Jordan noted that nobody believes Schiff). So why did Schiff disallow testimony to the second person that Vindman provided information to? Isn't it much more likely because Vindman does know the identity of the whistleblower and lied under oath about it, and Schiff also knows?

Atlantis wrote:He naively takes at face value what all the rest just pretend to believe while behaving like pigs.

A naive Lieutenant Colonel--that worked for Lt. Col. Oliver North once--"I thought it was a neat idea." You don't get on the national security counsel being naive.

Atlantis wrote:That's what happens when you take one sentence out of 10 hours of hearings and pretend that there is nothing else. Jim Jordan didn't "cross-examine", he rattled off a series of wild unsubstantiated assumptions like a machine gun without even giving Sondland the chance to reply.

Sondland wasn't questioned exclusively by Jim Jordan, and Sondland had clearly stated that he "believed" or "presumed" many times. Ratcliffe again asked Sondland that he had NO direct evidence of Trump tying Ukraine aid to investigations, to which Sondland replied "Correct." In cross examination, Sondland said:

Sondland wrote:I never heard from President Trump that aid was conditioned on an announcement of an investigation.


Sondland wrote:Trump never told me directly … He did not ever have a conversation with me about the aid.


Sondland wrote:When I asked him (Trump), ‘What do you want from Ukraine,’ he said, ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelinsky to do the right thing.’

Schiff seemed to have information about the opening statement, which begs the question: was Schiff coordinating with Sondland or his attorneys? Was Schiff getting information on their communications from the NSA or CIA? That opening statement was damning, but entirely predicated on assumptions which completely fell apart on cross examination--making Schiff look like a fool. Was that intentional? It's interesting.

Atlantis wrote:If you had listened to the hearings instead of getting your ready made opinions from Breitbart, you would have known that when you "put two and two together, you get four". Do you "presume" that you get four when you put two and two together? Or do you know it? We all know it for a fact, even if you try to distort the facts until you are blue in the face. We all know that there was an impeachable offense of quid pro quo.

As I have said before, a retail sale is a quid pro quo. Filling up your car with gas and paying for it is a quid pro quo. The idea that a Latin phrase implies criminal activity is false. As one Congressman pointed out, two assumptions plus two presumptions still doesn't make up evidence or a fact.

Atlantis wrote:Now, we all know what that means.

That's an assumption of fact not in evidence--again, why the case fails. You have to infer for everyone.

Atlantis wrote:Welcome to the lowest circle of hell in cohabitation with Kim Jong-un and Idi Amin.

Well at least you have a clue now why socialism is a hard sell to most people with real life experience. Fortunately for socialists, an idiot is born every day.
By late
#15050007
blackjack21 wrote:
Republican talking points



Sorry, couldn't bring myself to repeat them. I have a few shreds of self respect left.

Republicans are trying to bury the crime in vapid BS. Anyone paying attention, and that includes nearly everyone here, knows better.

But they are not the intended audience. Their BS is aimed at swing voters, who don't typically pay attention. And who can be swayed by a simple, if deceptive, narrative.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15050012
The former top Europe and Russia expert at the National Security Council denounced the “false narrative” promoted by President Trump and Republicans that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, calling it a dangerous story planted by Russia that plays into Moscow’s hands. Witnesses have testified that Mr. Trump was preoccupied with getting Ukraine to announce it was investigating the claim.
User avatar
By blackjack21
#15050033
late wrote:Republicans are trying to bury the crime in vapid BS.

On the contrary, they are subjecting testimony to the Federal Rules of Evidence--demonstrating that this will fail for certain in the United States Senate, where Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure will apply.

late wrote:Their BS is aimed at swing voters, who don't typically pay attention.

This is not an election. It's a series of votes in the House and Senate. Voters make their decision in November 2020.

jimjam wrote:The former top Europe and Russia expert at the National Security Council denounced the “false narrative” promoted by President Trump and Republicans that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election, calling it a dangerous story planted by Russia that plays into Moscow’s hands.

We already know that the entire Russiagate witch hunt went back to Obama's office. "Former" experts aren't privy to all of these details, and some were part of an anti-Trump coup.

jimjam wrote:Witnesses have testified that Mr. Trump was preoccupied with getting Ukraine to announce it was investigating the claim.

That's because they heard it from Sondland, who presumed it to be the case.
By late
#15050039
blackjack21 wrote:
On the contrary, they are subjecting testimony to the Federal Rules of Evidence--demonstrating that this will fail for certain in the United States Senate, where Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure will apply.


This is not an election. It's a series of votes in the House and Senate. Voters make their decision in November 2020.






We already know that the entire Russiagate witch hunt went back to Obama's office. "Former" experts aren't privy to all of these details, and some were part of an anti-Trump coup.


That's because they heard it from Sondland, who presumed it to be the case.



You keep making assertions without an argument to put flesh on the bones, or a source to add weight. IOW, fiction.

It's smoke and mirrors that they want to use in the next election.

Russiagate goes back to Putin's office. This could be a real bad day for you. Fiona has been threatening to talk about how Putin leads Trump around by the nose. About time.

That's because they've not only heard it from a bunch of witnesses, "I have a favor to ask, though".

We should have more witnesses, but obstruction of justice... You know as well as I do what Bolton would say.
User avatar
By jimjam
#15050157
Everyone in this inquiry has been clear. We are doing exactly what the Russians want. The President is doing more for Russian interests than he is for the security interests of the United States of America. Then these Republicans turn cry babies and use terms like 'Never Trumpers'.

Fiona Hill may have been the best witness I’ve ever seen in a hearing. At times it was comical watching the GOP members as she thoroughly debunked their conspiracy theories. Eventually they just gave up asking her questions and just gave speeches. :lol: I noticed Nunes was fairly subdued while questioning her. I reckon he knew she'd tear him apart if he tried anything like the tactics he has used on others. She owned the room.

https://youtu.be/i4Dg00JxxkM
User avatar
By Hindsite
#15050171
late wrote:The Western Journal is very Right wing. I find their assertion dubious to the point of ridiculous. Working at that level, he has options. You would need a damn good reason why talking to that NSC lawyer is inappropriate, and you ought to know that is not something you have.

I did not say it was inappropriate, but since I have 20 years experience on active duty in the U.S. Army, I remember being taught to address my concerns up the chain of command first. LTC Vindman did not provide that courtesy to the next above him in his chain of command, seeming to indicate a lack of respect.
User avatar
By Stormsmith
#15050174
Atlantis wrote:The buck ends with Rudy Giuliani. That's convenient because he can refuse to testify on the basis of attorney/client privilege. Giuliani is the firewall between Trump and the impeachment investigation...........

They did however indirectly implicate Trump by stating that getting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens as a quid pro quo would have been wrong. Trump in his June 25th phone call with Zelensky made clear that it was about the Bidens, when they talked about Burisma. Thus, all indirectly condemned Trump.


Rightyo.

I think it's time the Manhattan DA's office should have a chat with Rudi (anD Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman) then
Barr and Pompeo and Pence should be impeached

Drain the swamp.
Last edited by Stormsmith on 22 Nov 2019 04:34, edited 1 time in total.
  • 1
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 69

Confessions extracted under torture...seems legit.[…]

^ Wouldn't happen though, since the Israelis are n[…]

I was actually unaware :lol: Before he was […]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Every accusation is a confession Why sexual v[…]