McConnell Cannot Block Witnesses - Just Announced

[colfax_m]

You're just acting like an asshole, to be honest. I expect you to disregard this post anyway. You want a source, so I provided it. You ignored it until I called you out for ignoring it. Now you're demanding two sources. See the goalposts moving? I do.

It doesn't matter what I do. You're going to act like an entitled asshole anyway.

Amusement Indus., Inc. v. Stern, 07 Civ. 11586 (LAK) (GWG) | Casetext

​

In New York, to establish "the requisite showing of intent to deceive," a party must establish a defendant's "'guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.'" Schwartz v. Newsweek, Inc., 653 F. Supp. 384, 390 (S.D.N.Y. 1986) (quoting Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v. Sapovitch, 296 N.Y. 226, 229 (1947)), aff'd 827 F.2d 879 (2d Cir. 1987), abrogation on other grounds recognized by Reichelt v. Emhart Corp., 921 F.2d 425 (2d Cir. 1990). "[M]ere carelessness" is not sufficient. Id. Nevertheless, because fraudulent intent "is rarely susceptible to direct proof," it may ordinarily be "established by circumstantial evidence and the legitimate inference arising therefrom."

​

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

then let me be clear -

i don't give a shit about trump. he got elected, he's president. same as obama and every president before him. some i liked, some i didn't, some i just didn't care about either way.

it's the way these things USUALLY work. i simply don't want how we judge innocent or guilty to be morphed by whether or not we like you or not. so far you seem cool with that. i'm betting you'd not be if they were coming after you in such a manner.

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

period. end of story.

now if you believe intent *can* be proven by circumstantial evidence, i need to see you go after hillary because there's a shit load of it there. right? still wanna go there?

Intent can be proven with circumstantial evidence. I’ve provided you two sources that make that claim. Are you going to now ask for a third?

I don’t find you to be very objective so I won’t test your opinion of yourself. Perhaps you’re driven by animus towards Democrats. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

My point stands that your need for “direct” or “documented” evidence to prove an intent is a bit absurd and could rarely be reached. Adhering to your standard seems like to would be havoc in a court or law.

As for your allegations against Clinton, people wanted Comey to pursue charges based on circumstantial evidence. It seems you perhaps would agree with them, but I’d want to hear it from you to be sure.

Clinton didn’t delete emails under subpoena. Her technician did. Smashing phones isn’t illegal. Wiping hard drives isn’t illegal. That’s what you do with devices that are end of life. I’ve drilled holes in laptop hard drives that I was recycling to avoid them from getting any of my information.

You need to demonstrate first that Clinton had any part in those actions and that she intended to evade oversight by doing so.

So we could go with your standard that demands we find documentary evidence that Clinton said “destroy the devices so that Congress can’t subpoena them”.

Or we could go by rational standard and use circumstantial evidence. There was indeed circumstantial evidence Clinton attempted to evade oversight. However, circumstantial evidence requires that if there is a rational explanation that does not demonstrate guilt, you have to go with that. The rational explanation for Clinton’s use of a private server is that it was more convenient. Therefore you have to assume this is the correct explanation.

great. then if intent can be proven, why was it not done so for hillary with so much more to PROVE it?

until you're interested in equal application of these standards, best you're going to get from me is sarcasm.

Because there wasn’t so much more to prove it. Did you read my last paragraph? There was a rational exculpatory explanation. She used the server because it was convenient. That rational explanation doesn’t exist for Trump. It is not rational for him to be concerned about rooting out corruption as the chief executive but fail to involve the DoJ that works for him in that capacity.

 

[colfax_m]

I never claimed to know any such case. I've provided a statement from a federal prosecutor that backs up what I say.

Again, I've explained this to you 6 times, but you ignore it. This isn't an honest discussion if all you do is dig your heels in and ignore me.

So what you're saying is that you "know" it's true because someone told you to "know" it.

I have a statement from someone that could conceivably be considered an expert. It’s no different than what anyone else would provide as substance for their argument.

Wrong, Chuckles. "XYZ important person said it, so that makes it true!" is left-think. Not that people ostensibly on the right don't lapse into it sometimes, but it's not really our standard.

Personally, I expect my experts to show their work and explain how they reached that conclusion. I don't just take their word for it. Little secret: experts are people, too.

Yeah. I’ll keep that in mind next time someone brings up Dershowitz because that was beat over our heads by conservatives the last few weeks. Gowdy’s statement provides the rational. People don’t just come out and admit to their corrupt or illegal intent. That doesn’t mean it can’t be demonstrated in court.

To be honest, it feels like your asking for something you know I don’t have access to. Not because you don’t believe me (or Trey Gowdy) but because Iceberg is looking for a cheap “point” to gloat over rather than have an honest argument.

So are you saying that I touted Dershowitz as an expert whose word should just be accepted on something? Could you cite me when and where I did that?

I never said that you said any such thing.

 

[iceberg]

acting? to you trust me, i'm not acting.

now - i find it funny you can look this up, but you can't look up any cases where someone was convicted because of circumstantial evidence.

they may well be there. not looked. but i never made the claim because it seems idiotic to me that ANYONE would think someone saying "yea, i think this is what they meant" is proof enough of someones guilt. i'd NEVER think it proper to convict you or anyone else with something so stupid. doing so simply means that person never had a chance in hell and was railroaded by any means necessary.

and that is what i feel is happening here. would you allow your family to be convicted under the same circumstances? would YOU want to be put in jail for heresay / circumstantial evidence?

i know i would NOT. so i don't view this as a valid path simply because i may not like someone. my emotional attach or detachment is not relevant nor reason to convict someone of a "crime".

i'm after using the same standards on trump you'd use on obama, the clintons, my brother - or at least the ones we *should* be using.

now in your quote itself - you must establish guilty knowledge or willful ignorance.

was that done? does "circumstantial" evidence and someones oral testimony who wasn't even there honestly make this viable?

i agree that intent is hard to prove. could that also be WHY the left used it? hard to prove / hard to disprove? seems they have a track record for doing that. kavanaugh comes to mind.

the left has a horrible habit of doing this. it makes their base happy but it's not right. i'd not want these tactics used on me so i won't use them on others regardless of how i feel about them.

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

then let me be clear -

i don't give a shit about trump. he got elected, he's president. same as obama and every president before him. some i liked, some i didn't, some i just didn't care about either way.

it's the way these things USUALLY work. i simply don't want how we judge innocent or guilty to be morphed by whether or not we like you or not. so far you seem cool with that. i'm betting you'd not be if they were coming after you in such a manner.

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

period. end of story.

now if you believe intent *can* be proven by circumstantial evidence, i need to see you go after hillary because there's a shit load of it there. right? still wanna go there?

Intent can be proven with circumstantial evidence. I’ve provided you two sources that make that claim. Are you going to now ask for a third?

I don’t find you to be very objective so I won’t test your opinion of yourself. Perhaps you’re driven by animus towards Democrats. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

My point stands that your need for “direct” or “documented” evidence to prove an intent is a bit absurd and could rarely be reached. Adhering to your standard seems like to would be havoc in a court or law.

As for your allegations against Clinton, people wanted Comey to pursue charges based on circumstantial evidence. It seems you perhaps would agree with them, but I’d want to hear it from you to be sure.

Clinton didn’t delete emails under subpoena. Her technician did. Smashing phones isn’t illegal. Wiping hard drives isn’t illegal. That’s what you do with devices that are end of life. I’ve drilled holes in laptop hard drives that I was recycling to avoid them from getting any of my information.

You need to demonstrate first that Clinton had any part in those actions and that she intended to evade oversight by doing so.

So we could go with your standard that demands we find documentary evidence that Clinton said “destroy the devices so that Congress can’t subpoena them”.

Or we could go by rational standard and use circumstantial evidence. There was indeed circumstantial evidence Clinton attempted to evade oversight. However, circumstantial evidence requires that if there is a rational explanation that does not demonstrate guilt, you have to go with that. The rational explanation for Clinton’s use of a private server is that it was more convenient. Therefore you have to assume this is the correct explanation.

great. then if intent can be proven, why was it not done so for hillary with so much more to PROVE it?

until you're interested in equal application of these standards, best you're going to get from me is sarcasm.

Because there wasn’t so much more to prove it. Did you read my last paragraph? There was a rational exculpatory explanation. She used the server because it was convenient. That rational explanation doesn’t exist for Trump. It is not rational for him to be concerned about rooting out corruption as the chief executive but fail to involve the DoJ that works for him in that capacity.

dude i barely read your first one.

now before you go running off crying about that, i have read more than enough to know you're 100% leftist. you won't consider any possibility your side is doing something wrong yet you'll pull any reason needed out of your ass to justify what you WANT.

much like children.

so no. once i have established this is you - i move on and no, i don't read a lot of your shit cause i've already read it. you're creating a world you like vs. trying to understand the one that is. along the way you make up rules and why YOUR SIDE is different or doesn't have to follow said rules.

i'm sick of that crap and no, won't entertain it anymore. if this makes me a bigger asshole in your eyes, i honestly don't care.

 

[colfax_m]

I have my doubts as to whether this is truly your opinion or if this opinion was developed de novo in defense of Trump.

For instance, people are saying Biden fired Shokin because he wanted to help his son. By your standard, unless we find documented evidence that Biden stated he intended to help his son by firing Shokin, then he's off the hook. I think that's ridiculous. Criminals engaging in criminal activity don't declare their criminal intent. If we demanded that of everyone, then the justice system would be a joke and a lot of criminals would go free when it's obvious to any objective observer they were guilty.

Same too for Clinton. People claim she used the private email server to avoid oversight. No one can show that she intended to use it for that purposes. Your standard demands that we see something documented that she did so.

It's an absurd standard which is why anyone would logically reject it.

then let me be clear -

i don't give a shit about trump. he got elected, he's president. same as obama and every president before him. some i liked, some i didn't, some i just didn't care about either way.

it's the way these things USUALLY work. i simply don't want how we judge innocent or guilty to be morphed by whether or not we like you or not. so far you seem cool with that. i'm betting you'd not be if they were coming after you in such a manner.

as for comparing clintons e-mail to trumps "crimes" - if trump deleted a shitload of evidence, bleach bit a hard drive, smashed his phones and was caught with his IT group in forums asking how to hide evidence, id want his ass fried.

period. end of story.

now if you believe intent *can* be proven by circumstantial evidence, i need to see you go after hillary because there's a shit load of it there. right? still wanna go there?

Intent can be proven with circumstantial evidence. I’ve provided you two sources that make that claim. Are you going to now ask for a third?

I don’t find you to be very objective so I won’t test your opinion of yourself. Perhaps you’re driven by animus towards Democrats. You certainly wouldn’t be the first.

My point stands that your need for “direct” or “documented” evidence to prove an intent is a bit absurd and could rarely be reached. Adhering to your standard seems like to would be havoc in a court or law.

As for your allegations against Clinton, people wanted Comey to pursue charges based on circumstantial evidence. It seems you perhaps would agree with them, but I’d want to hear it from you to be sure.

Clinton didn’t delete emails under subpoena. Her technician did. Smashing phones isn’t illegal. Wiping hard drives isn’t illegal. That’s what you do with devices that are end of life. I’ve drilled holes in laptop hard drives that I was recycling to avoid them from getting any of my information.

You need to demonstrate first that Clinton had any part in those actions and that she intended to evade oversight by doing so.

So we could go with your standard that demands we find documentary evidence that Clinton said “destroy the devices so that Congress can’t subpoena them”.

Or we could go by rational standard and use circumstantial evidence. There was indeed circumstantial evidence Clinton attempted to evade oversight. However, circumstantial evidence requires that if there is a rational explanation that does not demonstrate guilt, you have to go with that. The rational explanation for Clinton’s use of a private server is that it was more convenient. Therefore you have to assume this is the correct explanation.

great. then if intent can be proven, why was it not done so for hillary with so much more to PROVE it?

until you're interested in equal application of these standards, best you're going to get from me is sarcasm.

Because there wasn’t so much more to prove it. Did you read my last paragraph? There was a rational exculpatory explanation. She used the server because it was convenient. That rational explanation doesn’t exist for Trump. It is not rational for him to be concerned about rooting out corruption as the chief executive but fail to involve the DoJ that works for him in that capacity.

dude i barely read your first one.

now before you go running off crying about that, i have read more than enough to know you're 100% leftist. you won't consider any possibility your side is doing something wrong yet you'll pull any reason needed out of your ass to justify what you WANT.

much like children.

so no. once i have established this is you - i move on and no, i don't read a lot of your shit cause i've already read it. you're creating a world you like vs. trying to understand the one that is. along the way you make up rules and why YOUR SIDE is different or doesn't have to follow said rules.

i'm sick of that crap and no, won't entertain it anymore. if this makes me a bigger asshole in your eyes, i honestly don't care.

You are definitely an asshole. A rational adult is capable of having a conversation with someone they disagree with. You can’t. You get all emotional. You can’t stay on topic. I’m more than happy to discuss the topic but you can’t do that.

So if you want to make it personal, let’s make it personal.

You taunt me to reply to you, to provide and explanation. And when I do, you ignore it. Then later you pretend I haven’t done so. That’s no defensible behavior. That’s being an asshole.

It doesn’t matter what I write. You’ll ignore it. That’s not a sign of maturity. It’s not a sign of intelligence. It’s a sign of cowardice.

Maybe if you’d listen to people who don’t share you opinion, like really listen, you wouldn’t be so full of hate.

 

[elongobardi]

like yet another foolish run at trump?

You did the exact same shit to Clinton. Make a ton of baseless accusations. And when none of it pans out, forget that you made fools of yourself then and move onto the next target.

but Clinton lied to the fbi.

Or is that no longer an issue?.. and like I've said many times this was never about Trump 9n as much as revenge. you just proved that's what it is to you.

Sure she did. And you totally have proof of this; right? I mean, you wouldn’t be one of those posters who makes claims and doesn’t back them up.

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colfax_m]

You did the exact same shit to Clinton. Make a ton of baseless accusations. And when none of it pans out, forget that you made fools of yourself then and move onto the next target.

but Clinton lied to the fbi.

Or is that no longer an issue?.. and like I've said many times this was never about Trump 9n as much as revenge. you just proved that's what it is to you.

Sure she did. And you totally have proof of this; right? I mean, you wouldn’t be one of those posters who makes claims and doesn’t back them up.

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

 

[elongobardi]

What now libtards. The vote is done no more witnesses. Take that and stick it where the sun don’t shine. Your losers and will continue to be losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry longo It's not over till I say it's over The liar trumps tax returns bs will be in SC soon and a vote before election day is coming Lets find out just how big a crook your king is

Right, like tax returns would make a difference to a voter.

Plus the tax returns are none of your business. Eddie asshole


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eddie has some fantasy that he - or, more accurately, his political masters - are going to magically find some egregious tax crime that the Internal Revenue Service never noticed.

They live in a fantasy world.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

Yeah Bolton will probably be a thorn in Trump side for the next 4 years but hey he can get in line. You should be glad all Bolton wanted to do was nuke everything in sight and start three more wars. He didn't actually get fired he left because we weren't killing people fast enough for him.

Jo

I see you don't understand Bolton at all. He may be a hawk but he's a true believer. No matter how insane Rump is, as long as he followed along the lines that Bolton wanted everything was hunky dory. But the Ukraine mess crossed the line. Bolton cannot be "Brought into Line" by anyone. True Believers are the most dangerous enemy and can be the most dangerous ally.

Bolton is a lying sack of shit and trying to get back in the spotlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

but Clinton lied to the fbi.

Or is that no longer an issue?.. and like I've said many times this was never about Trump 9n as much as revenge. you just proved that's what it is to you.

Sure she did. And you totally have proof of this; right? I mean, you wouldn’t be one of those posters who makes claims and doesn’t back them up.

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colfax_m]

Sure she did. And you totally have proof of this; right? I mean, you wouldn’t be one of those posters who makes claims and doesn’t back them up.

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

Please provide the transcript and show me the word "investigate" in it.

 

[colfax_m]

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

Please provide the transcript and show me the word "investigate" in it.

Oh good lord. Really?

Don’t split hairs.

 

[eddiew]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

Yeah Bolton will probably be a thorn in Trump side for the next 4 years but hey he can get in line. You should be glad all Bolton wanted to do was nuke everything in sight and start three more wars. He didn't actually get fired he left because we weren't killing people fast enough for him.

Jo

I see you don't understand Bolton at all. He may be a hawk but he's a true believer. No matter how insane Rump is, as long as he followed along the lines that Bolton wanted everything was hunky dory. But the Ukraine mess crossed the line. Bolton cannot be "Brought into Line" by anyone. True Believers are the most dangerous enemy and can be the most dangerous ally.

Bolton is a lying sack of shit and trying to get back in the spotlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And trump only lies when he opens his yap

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

Please provide the transcript and show me the word "investigate" in it.

Oh good lord. Really?

Don’t split hairs.

Split hairs? If Trump demanded an official investigation in that phone call, then he must have used that word, don't you think?

 

[elongobardi]

You mean like the Democrats who always make claims with no evidence


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

Your fucking retarded. He specifically said no Qik. Pro quo. So your alter like the rest. He didn’t have to turn the transcript over but he did as he had nothing to hide. Schiff changed a call and got caught. Fucking losers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

Yeah Bolton will probably be a thorn in Trump side for the next 4 years but hey he can get in line. You should be glad all Bolton wanted to do was nuke everything in sight and start three more wars. He didn't actually get fired he left because we weren't killing people fast enough for him.

Jo

I see you don't understand Bolton at all. He may be a hawk but he's a true believer. No matter how insane Rump is, as long as he followed along the lines that Bolton wanted everything was hunky dory. But the Ukraine mess crossed the line. Bolton cannot be "Brought into Line" by anyone. True Believers are the most dangerous enemy and can be the most dangerous ally.

Bolton is a lying sack of shit and trying to get back in the spotlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And trump only lies when he opens his yap

Like you and the rest of the liberal scumbags. What did he lie about tonight asshole. Nothing. Nada. Come back when you have a brain and can think for yourself scumbag


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

You mean like claiming Trump was asking the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponent? Like claiming Trump personally held up aid to Ukraine at the same time?

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

Please provide the transcript and show me the word "investigate" in it.

They can’t because it’s not in it. There fucking liars the Democrats


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[elongobardi]

Yes. All of which he did not do.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mmm, records state otherwise.

Your another pathetic brainwashed scumbag libtard. What record. There are none. No proof. Zero. You idiots are trying to make up something that’s not there. The documents were released and the Ukrainian President confirmed it. So sell your bullshit somewhere else. Get ready to have your ass handed to you in November and you will lose the House and you will lose seats in the Senate. Get your plane ticket now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The phone transcript shows Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden ya goof.

Please provide the transcript and show me the word "investigate" in it.

Oh good lord. Really?

Don’t split hairs.

Show it Asshole. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Faun]

Please provide the transcript and show me the word "investigate" in it.

Imbecile.

Trump:

• I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine

• I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it.

• Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

• There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.

• Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...

Zelensky:

• I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations.will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you.

• Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament; the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich.

• I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about.the case and will work on the investigation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If Moscow Mitch could block witnesses, did that make Trump supporters think Bolton's claims would just go away? Voters in the next election will know what Bolton says whether it is said as a witness in the senate or not.

Yeah Bolton will probably be a thorn in Trump side for the next 4 years but hey he can get in line. You should be glad all Bolton wanted to do was nuke everything in sight and start three more wars. He didn't actually get fired he left because we weren't killing people fast enough for him.

Jo

I see you don't understand Bolton at all. He may be a hawk but he's a true believer. No matter how insane Rump is, as long as he followed along the lines that Bolton wanted everything was hunky dory. But the Ukraine mess crossed the line. Bolton cannot be "Brought into Line" by anyone. True Believers are the most dangerous enemy and can be the most dangerous ally.

Bolton is a lying sack of shit and trying to get back in the spotlight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yah, saying anything contrary to what Rump says is always lying, right. It's going to be a fun 10 months. Sleep Tight. I am on Guard to protect you.