@averagejoe1 saidThe obvious answer is obvious. No one.
Well, if I am not allowed by The Suzianne to say that the Republicans made it great again, then who should I say made it great again???
Now stop deflecting and answer the question, if you can.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidGenerally, people don't go to jail unless they commit crimes and are convicted of those crimes at trial. None of those people have been charged with any crimes AFAIK.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear. I’m just predicting that all these people like clapper Brennan McNab Strozk and girlfriend, Comey, Hillary......for all that they have done, none will do time. Guilty people. Didn’t mean ‘people who are not like me.’ Sorry for confusion .
@averagejoe1 saidYou're welcome. Read between the lines.
Google is not showing that, can you link those words for us? Many thanks.
@mott-the-hoople saidHe didn’t change what trump said, did he.
How does any of this give him the ability to change what Trump said in the phone call?
No.
Everyone can read what trump said: there’s a manuscript.
And republicans were saying: it’s all hear-say (it was a bloody phone conversation... personally I don’t think anything but hear-say can be achieved...), but this purple-heart guy was actually listening in and reported it multiple times.
How you lot can continue question this issue is bizarre.
I mean, remember how you all harped on about a non-issue like Obama’s birth certificate?
This trump business is the real 💩 going down. And you exhibit the exact opposite behaviour.
Why don’t you reflect on that?
Look. I understand politics and hate, but rationally, you already have the high-court stacked, why on Earth cling to this madman who’s obviously unfit to be president.
It’s damaging your country and his narcisstic moronity is going to haunt the US and the republican party for a long time.
By not standing up and agreeing that the man must be removed, you’re basically saying: “I’ll do anything to stay in power.”
And that will bite you in the long term.
@handyandy saidthe fact you have to lie about this nullifies your argument.
Yes, all Trump said was, "I'll give you cash and a White House visit and you'll give me Biden."
@no1marauder saidwhy did you run in the other thread where I exposed democrat leaking concerning baghdadi ?
Generally, people don't go to jail unless they commit crimes and are convicted of those crimes at trial. None of those people have been charged with any crimes AFAIK.
@no1marauder saidwe have the phone call transcript ...you or no one can change that!
The phone call was the middle of the conspiracy, not the beginning or end. Vindman's testimony corroborated that of Fiona Hill and Ambassador Taylor and pushes Trump's crony Sondland to the realm of perjury:
"The West Wing meetings on July 10 increasingly appear to mark the moment of detonation of the Ukraine crisis inside the White House, though by then Bolton, Vindma ...[text shortened]... nfirm that the Congressionally appropriated funds were withheld as a way to pressure the Ukrainians.
2 edits
@no1marauder saidSorry, the telephone discussion has been cleaned by bleach bit and the phones destroyed.
Another bombshell:
Vindman testified that the transcript of the Ukraine call omitted key phrases, including a reference to Burisma, and that he tried to get it restored. https://nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share via
@NYTimes
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1189345583036796930?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle% ...[text shortened]... sible, I should say "IF this report is accurate and IF Vindman is telling the truth" etc. etc. etc.
We've already seen this movie, and guess what, no one seems to give a damn.
Imagine that.
LMAO!
I reckon this is the price Trump pays for slowly trying to withdraw troops from the Middle East. The military complex is not happy.
1 edit
@no1marauder said@no1marauder said
Another bombshell:
Vindman testified that the transcript of the Ukraine call omitted key phrases, including a reference to Burisma, and that he tried to get it restored. https://nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share via
@NYTimes
https://twitter.com/maggieNYT/status/1189345583036796930?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle% ...[text shortened]... sible, I should say "IF this report is accurate and IF Vindman is telling the truth" etc. etc. etc.
Another bombshell:
Vindman testified that the transcript of the Ukraine call omitted key phrases, including a reference to Burisma, and that he tried to get it restored. https://nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share via
@NYTimes
I wonder how many more people have to come forward and testify as to how this ham handed cover up was carried out? Thankfully many GOP Senators not jumping to Trump's defence on this.
@mchill saidif true...in your infinite wisdom... what difference would that make? Is burisma corruption out off bounds? just what?
@no1marauder said
Another bombshell:
Vindman testified that the transcript of the Ukraine call omitted key phrases, including a reference to Burisma, and that he tried to get it restored. https://nytimes.com/2019/10/29/us/politics/alexander-vindman-trump-ukraine.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share via
@NYTimes
I wonder how many more people have to come forward and testi ...[text shortened]... anded cover up was carried out? Thankfully many GOP Senators not jumping to Trump's defence on this.
Did this guy listen in on the phone call?
Who did he speak with?
These are questions that schitt would not allow answered...why is that?
@mott-the-hoople saidThat's what I don't get. All this angst because Trump was seeking .... the truth?
Is burisma corruption out off bounds?
Apparently THE TRUTH is now a "thing of value" which must be criminalized in order to protect corrupt Democrats.
1 edit
@sleepyguy saidRight, reveling the truth about their e-mails is equated with secretly rigging an election.
That's what I don't get. All this angst because Trump was seeking .... the truth?
Apparently THE TRUTH is now a "thing of value" which must be criminalized in order to protect corrupt Democrats.
Hopefully, the democrats can keep more people in the dark this election cycle.
1 edit
@mott-the-hoople saidIf Burisma was specifically mentioned and then scrubbed out in the version released to the public, it would be more proof of an attempted coverup.
if true...in your infinite wisdom... what difference would that make? Is burisma corruption out off bounds? just what?
Did this guy listen in on the phone call?
Who did he speak with?
These are questions that schitt would not allow answered...why is that?
Yes, he listened to the phone call.
He testified for 10 hours and Republicans on the committees and their staff were allowed to question him. Reportedly, they spent most of their time trying to find out who the whistleblower was.