Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How To Stop The Ukraine Circus
119 views
Skip to first unread message
Tom Enright
Sep 30, 2019, 9:25:01 PM9/30/19
to
https://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-clinton-and-ukraine-11569881729?
The Biden clan still needs to explain why a vice president’s son was enjoying a $50,000-per-month gig for which his principal qualification appears to have been his last name. But Joe Biden isn’t the only pillar of the Democratic establishment who won’t enjoy the new spotlight on American relations with Ukraine. And President Donald Trump isn’t the only one who wants a fuller accounting of that country’s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a letter released on Monday morning, Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin ask U.S. Attorney General William Barr if he’s trying to answer the lingering questions. . . .
The senators aren’t relying on reports from conservative bloggers. The quotations come from a 2017 story in Politico, hardly a pro-Trump outfit. “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire,” read the headline on the article by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. “Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton,” said the subhead of the article, which was published shortly before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.
The authors reported that Ukrainian government officials “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers” with the goal of “advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”
With the benefit of hindsight and the results of the Mueller investigation, it’s now clear that there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. What is not clear and what demands further investigation is how this baseless claim managed to consume the first two years of an American presidency.
-TE
"Hypothesis: The spying-on-Trump thing is worse than we even imagine, and once it was clear Hillary had lost and it would inevitably come out, the Trump/Russia collusion talking point was created as a distraction.”
-Glen Reynolds, March 2017
The Biden clan still needs to explain why a vice president’s son was enjoying a $50,000-per-month gig for which his principal qualification appears to have been his last name. But Joe Biden isn’t the only pillar of the Democratic establishment who won’t enjoy the new spotlight on American relations with Ukraine. And President Donald Trump isn’t the only one who wants a fuller accounting of that country’s role in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
In a letter released on Monday morning, Republican senators Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin ask U.S. Attorney General William Barr if he’s trying to answer the lingering questions. . . .
The senators aren’t relying on reports from conservative bloggers. The quotations come from a 2017 story in Politico, hardly a pro-Trump outfit. “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire,” read the headline on the article by Kenneth P. Vogel and David Stern. “Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton,” said the subhead of the article, which was published shortly before Mr. Trump’s inauguration.
The authors reported that Ukrainian government officials “helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers” with the goal of “advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia.”
With the benefit of hindsight and the results of the Mueller investigation, it’s now clear that there was no evidence of Trump campaign collusion with Russia. What is not clear and what demands further investigation is how this baseless claim managed to consume the first two years of an American presidency.
-TE
"Hypothesis: The spying-on-Trump thing is worse than we even imagine, and once it was clear Hillary had lost and it would inevitably come out, the Trump/Russia collusion talking point was created as a distraction.”
-Glen Reynolds, March 2017
Tom Enright
Sep 30, 2019, 9:36:15 PM9/30/19
to
plai...@gmail.com
Sep 30, 2019, 9:38:12 PM9/30/19
to
What qualifications do Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared have for their jobs? Other than nepotism.
Eric Ramon
Sep 30, 2019, 10:49:28 PM9/30/19
to
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 6:38:12 PM UTC-7, plai...@gmail.com wrote:
> What qualifications do Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared have for their jobs? Other than nepotism.
of course whatever Hunter Biden did, if he did anything, is open to investigation, either by Ukrainians or our Justice Department. But not to Trump personally.
> What qualifications do Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared have for their jobs? Other than nepotism.
And Trump should also stop charging government people to stay at his places. He should recommend alternatives so it doesn't appear he's cashing in by being President.
Tom Enright
Sep 30, 2019, 11:12:24 PM9/30/19
to
-TE
"Nobel Peace Prize Committee Informs Trump He Has Not Launched Enough Drone Strikes To Qualify."
Eric Ramon
Sep 30, 2019, 11:26:00 PM9/30/19
to
On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:12:24 PM UTC-7, Tom Enright wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:49:28 PM UTC-4, Eric Ramon wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 6:38:12 PM UTC-7, plai...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > What qualifications do Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared have for
> > > their jobs? Other than nepotism.
>
> > of course whatever Hunter Biden did, if he did anything, is open to
> > investigation, either by Ukrainians or our Justice Department. But
> > not to Trump personally.
> >
> > And Trump should also stop charging government people to stay at his
> > places. He should recommend alternatives so it doesn't appear he's
> > cashing in by being President.
>
> That's it? Two "but Trumps?" And that's not even the important bit.
>
we're talking about Trump. Of course I'm going to mention Trump.
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 10:49:28 PM UTC-4, Eric Ramon wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 6:38:12 PM UTC-7, plai...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > What qualifications do Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared have for
> > > their jobs? Other than nepotism.
>
> > of course whatever Hunter Biden did, if he did anything, is open to
> > investigation, either by Ukrainians or our Justice Department. But
> > not to Trump personally.
> >
> > And Trump should also stop charging government people to stay at his
> > places. He should recommend alternatives so it doesn't appear he's
> > cashing in by being President.
>
> That's it? Two "but Trumps?" And that's not even the important bit.
>
Tim VanWagoner
Oct 1, 2019, 5:46:23 AM10/1/19
to
It is a clear abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work with your private attorney to prosecute a political opponent. It is not an abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work with your own justice department to prosecute someone. Since our justice department says they had nothing to do with this, that’s the problem.
It might be unethical for Bidens son to have that position, there is nothing illegal about it. And the attempt to deflect attention here is clearly not working.
If the President came out and just said he made a mistake here and fired Giuliani, the American public would let this go. The Democrats won’t, but that’s irrelevant. Trump should shut his mouth and his staff should give him one of those Chinese finger traps so he can’t tweet. This is going to end up becoming another coverup is worse than the crime. Oh, yeah, they should also program Fox News out of his TV so he quits listening to half baked conspiracy theories and pursuing them as official policy.
It might be unethical for Bidens son to have that position, there is nothing illegal about it. And the attempt to deflect attention here is clearly not working.
If the President came out and just said he made a mistake here and fired Giuliani, the American public would let this go. The Democrats won’t, but that’s irrelevant. Trump should shut his mouth and his staff should give him one of those Chinese finger traps so he can’t tweet. This is going to end up becoming another coverup is worse than the crime. Oh, yeah, they should also program Fox News out of his TV so he quits listening to half baked conspiracy theories and pursuing them as official policy.
Tom Enright
Oct 1, 2019, 7:28:16 AM10/1/19
to
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 5:46:23 AM UTC-4, Tim VanWagoner wrote:
> It is a clear abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work
> with your private attorney to prosecute a political opponent. It is
> not an abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work with
> your own justice department to prosecute someone. Since our justice
> department says they had nothing to do with this, that’s the problem.
To be clear, to whom are you directing this comment: Trump or Clinton?
> It is a clear abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work
> with your private attorney to prosecute a political opponent. It is
> not an abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work with
> your own justice department to prosecute someone. Since our justice
> department says they had nothing to do with this, that’s the problem.
<snip>
-TE
Before the election of 2016, Hillary Clinton’s illegal mishandling of classified information was a hot topic of conversation. By hosting her email on a private, unsecure server, she was violating several laws regarding the mishandling of classified information, and by deleting her emails that were under subpoena she was obstructing justice. Less than a week before the election, the New York Times Editorial Board wrote a scathing piece blasting Donald Trump and Republicans for the “particularly bizarre and dangerous tactic” of “warning that they may well seek to impeach Hillary Clinton if she wins, or, short of that, tie her up with endless investigations and other delaying tactics.”
“Of all the arguments advanced by the Trump forces, this has to be among the most preposterous,” they wrote, “In effect, what they’re saying is, Mrs. Clinton won’t be able to govern, because we won’t let her. So don’t waste your vote on her. Vote for us.”
btpag...@gmail.com
Oct 1, 2019, 7:31:49 AM10/1/19
to
Really? Read the transcript again. He does mention Barr. Do you know what he doesn’t mention though? Prosecution of any type. So by your own definition, Tim, and for at least those 2 reasons it appears that you would agree he didn’t do anything wrong here.
jim brown
Oct 1, 2019, 7:37:29 AM10/1/19
to
But...I'm quite certain a few things will happen. The Dems will vote to impeach. The Senate will not come even close to removing him from office. And unless the dems come up with a much stronger candidate than they have so far (Biden now excluded, mostly because of his buddies in the house), Trump walks into another term, with four more years of this.
Tim VanWagoner
Oct 1, 2019, 7:40:07 AM10/1/19
to
He mentions Barr Brent. He could mention Christ himself, but that wouldn’t change things. The Justice dept says Barr wasn’t involved and the Ukrainians say the only one pushing them was Giuliani.
My goodness, y’all are a credulous bunch.
My goodness, y’all are a credulous bunch.
xyzzy
Oct 1, 2019, 9:16:17 AM10/1/19
to
with Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac, because it was suspected he was
trying to influence a politically sensitive investigation? Now Barr is
going all over the world personality attempting to start and influence
politically sensitive investigations and you and the other Trumpers don’t
bat an eye.
TDS indeed
Futbol Phan
Oct 1, 2019, 10:55:57 AM10/1/19
to
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Oct 1, 2019, 11:08:27 AM10/1/19
to
Go head and have the hearings. Trump’s coffers are bulging as it is, get those lefties up there screeching and the same thing will happen for the GOP congressional candidates.
xyzzy
Oct 1, 2019, 11:11:13 AM10/1/19
to
On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:08:27 AM UTC-4, Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger wrote:
> Go head and have the hearings. Trump’s coffers are bulging as it is, get those lefties up there screeching and the same thing will happen for the GOP congressional candidates.
Maybe, but one of the many things Trump proved in 2016 is that more money doesn't always win. Clinton had way outraised and outspent him.
> Go head and have the hearings. Trump’s coffers are bulging as it is, get those lefties up there screeching and the same thing will happen for the GOP congressional candidates.
jim brown
Oct 1, 2019, 11:17:30 AM10/1/19
to
Damon Hynes, Cyclone Ranger
Oct 1, 2019, 1:07:52 PM10/1/19
to
Donations to Hillary were virtue signalling at best (“I’m with her!”) and money laundering at worst. YMMV, for all I know Trump is running a laundering op himself but he doesn’t strike me as the type.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 1, 2019, 2:48:07 PM10/1/19
to
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm certain you will discount this, but recent polls show that a MAJORITY o=
>f voters favor impeachment hearings. And, although you certainly wouldn't =
>know it from the locked-on Trumpsters in this chatrum, about a quarter of G=
>OPers feel it should proceed.
No problem.
But where has Trump violated the C., PhChicken?
Hugh
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I'm certain you will discount this, but recent polls show that a MAJORITY o=
>f voters favor impeachment hearings. And, although you certainly wouldn't =
>know it from the locked-on Trumpsters in this chatrum, about a quarter of G=
>OPers feel it should proceed.
No problem.
But where has Trump violated the C., PhChicken?
Hugh
Futbol Phan
Oct 1, 2019, 2:51:40 PM10/1/19
to
Futbol Phan
Oct 1, 2019, 3:02:16 PM10/1/19
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 1, 2019, 3:48:53 PM10/1/19
to
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 12:02:13 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
suspect the Demophonies will leave with their tail tucked between
their legs once again.
Trump violating the C was also a part. And you have sidestepped and
run from my challenge like the coward and imbecile you are.
And you are so dishonest you won't admit you erred.
Hugh
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 1:48:07 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm certain you will discount this, but recent polls show that a MAJORITY o=
>> >f voters favor impeachment hearings. And, although you certainly wouldn't =
>> >know it from the locked-on Trumpsters in this chatrum, about a quarter of G=
>> >OPers feel it should proceed.
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>> But where has Trump violated the C., PhChicken?
>>
>> Hugh
>
>Still haven't figured out that the purpose of the hearing is to determine this, have you?
The impeachment hearing was only a part. Let it continue since I
>On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 1:48:07 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 07:55:54 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm certain you will discount this, but recent polls show that a MAJORITY o=
>> >f voters favor impeachment hearings. And, although you certainly wouldn't =
>> >know it from the locked-on Trumpsters in this chatrum, about a quarter of G=
>> >OPers feel it should proceed.
>>
>> No problem.
>>
>> But where has Trump violated the C., PhChicken?
>>
>> Hugh
>
>Still haven't figured out that the purpose of the hearing is to determine this, have you?
suspect the Demophonies will leave with their tail tucked between
their legs once again.
Trump violating the C was also a part. And you have sidestepped and
run from my challenge like the coward and imbecile you are.
And you are so dishonest you won't admit you erred.
Hugh
Futbol Phan
Oct 1, 2019, 4:13:29 PM10/1/19
to
>
Oct 1, 2019, 9:08:30 PM10/1/19
to
In article <9b475e14-64ce-408c-bfb7-
cb82d6...@googlegroups.com>
use the DOJ and FBI to slander a political opponent, why is it
wrong when Trump has his lawyer ask about it?
That is what lawyers do.
> It might be unethical for Bidens son to have that position, there is
> nothing illegal about it. And the attempt to deflect attention here is
> clearly not working.
Oh puhlease. Biden's coke snorting little brat is there to
receive payments and launder money, nothing else.
> If the President came out and just said he made a mistake here and
> fired Giuliani, the American public would let this go. The Democrats
> won’t, but that’s irrelevant. Trump should shut his mouth and his
> staff should give him one of those Chinese finger traps so he can’t
> tweet. This is going to end up becoming another coverup is worse than
> the crime. Oh, yeah, they should also program Fox News out of his TV
> so he quits listening to half baked conspiracy theories and pursuing
> them as official policy.
Personally I'm amused watching the Democrats destroy themselves
with fairy tales.
If that old bitch Ruthie G. dies before the end of the year, it
will ruin lefty Christmas and New Years for fifty years on top
of it.
cb82d6...@googlegroups.com>
Tim VanWagoner <tim.vanwa...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It is a clear abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work
> with your private attorney to prosecute a political opponent. It is
> not an abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work with
> your own justice department to prosecute someone. Since our justice
> department says they had nothing to do with this, that’s the
> problem.
Really? If it was okay for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to
>
> It is a clear abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work
> with your private attorney to prosecute a political opponent. It is
> not an abuse of power to pressure a foreign government to work with
> your own justice department to prosecute someone. Since our justice
> department says they had nothing to do with this, that’s the
> problem.
use the DOJ and FBI to slander a political opponent, why is it
wrong when Trump has his lawyer ask about it?
That is what lawyers do.
> It might be unethical for Bidens son to have that position, there is
> nothing illegal about it. And the attempt to deflect attention here is
> clearly not working.
receive payments and launder money, nothing else.
> If the President came out and just said he made a mistake here and
> fired Giuliani, the American public would let this go. The Democrats
> won’t, but that’s irrelevant. Trump should shut his mouth and his
> staff should give him one of those Chinese finger traps so he can’t
> tweet. This is going to end up becoming another coverup is worse than
> the crime. Oh, yeah, they should also program Fox News out of his TV
> so he quits listening to half baked conspiracy theories and pursuing
> them as official policy.
with fairy tales.
If that old bitch Ruthie G. dies before the end of the year, it
will ruin lefty Christmas and New Years for fifty years on top
of it.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 2, 2019, 8:17:45 AM10/2/19
to
On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 13:13:26 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
How did Trump violate the C. Dr. Scum? Run, baby, run.
If your credibility was the stock market a lot of folks would be
broke.
Hugh
If your credibility was the stock market a lot of folks would be
broke.
Hugh
btpag...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2019, 8:42:33 AM10/2/19
to
Hugh, that can’t be answered because there is nothing. With the Russia business the charge by the left was obstruction despite the fact that their key elements to make their case was what was freely handed over by the White House.
Same thing here, they talk about cover ups and secret servers, totally ignoring that with the release of the transcript to the public, obviously there cannot be a cover up. It’s called transparency and they honestly have no idea how to deal with it.
They are still, and over and over again, essentially charging Trump with being unpresidential. That’s really what it amounts to and you know this because President Obama has given worse impressions (being flexible after the election) and his branch literally destroying evidence (erasing hard drives, or physically crushing them) and nobody cared. Nobody charged anyone with obstruction and there was a far better case for it.
Someone in this thread or another tried to liken the tarmac meeting with Barr meeting with Ukraine officials. The problem is that the US was actively investigating Hilary, and the meeting gave the appearance of outside influence into that investigation. There is no investigation of Biden that I’m aware of, and no one asked anyone to launch one. It was requested to look into something that had a bad appearance. Quite frankly the apples to apples comparison would be ( and it isn’t perfect because there is no foreign power in the other one anyway) Obama asking someone to look into the tarmac meeting which I think everyone would approve of doing.
I’m disappointed in the lack of common sense and the grasping at literally anything to “get Trump” by even normally reasonable people.
I stated earlier that I didn’t feel that the response by the administration added up and that it was troubling, but mainly because it’s giving this the time of day at all. I guess they have to because we’ve allowed the media to brainwash us.
Same thing here, they talk about cover ups and secret servers, totally ignoring that with the release of the transcript to the public, obviously there cannot be a cover up. It’s called transparency and they honestly have no idea how to deal with it.
They are still, and over and over again, essentially charging Trump with being unpresidential. That’s really what it amounts to and you know this because President Obama has given worse impressions (being flexible after the election) and his branch literally destroying evidence (erasing hard drives, or physically crushing them) and nobody cared. Nobody charged anyone with obstruction and there was a far better case for it.
Someone in this thread or another tried to liken the tarmac meeting with Barr meeting with Ukraine officials. The problem is that the US was actively investigating Hilary, and the meeting gave the appearance of outside influence into that investigation. There is no investigation of Biden that I’m aware of, and no one asked anyone to launch one. It was requested to look into something that had a bad appearance. Quite frankly the apples to apples comparison would be ( and it isn’t perfect because there is no foreign power in the other one anyway) Obama asking someone to look into the tarmac meeting which I think everyone would approve of doing.
I’m disappointed in the lack of common sense and the grasping at literally anything to “get Trump” by even normally reasonable people.
I stated earlier that I didn’t feel that the response by the administration added up and that it was troubling, but mainly because it’s giving this the time of day at all. I guess they have to because we’ve allowed the media to brainwash us.
Futbol Phan
Oct 2, 2019, 11:05:47 AM10/2/19
to
Some dued
Oct 2, 2019, 11:09:24 AM10/2/19
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 2, 2019, 12:04:25 PM10/2/19
to
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 05:42:31 -0700 (PDT), btpag...@gmail.com wrote:
>Hugh, that can=E2=80=99t be answered because there is nothing. With the Ru=
>ssia business the charge by the left was obstruction despite the fact that =
>their key elements to make their case was what was freely handed over by th=
>e White House.
I'm addressing one point - Phat Phart and whether Trump violated the
C. as he said.
Anyone in the world who has a computer can read every time I have
challenged him and he has sidestepped, spun and/or avoided accepting
responsiblity for his statement.
Trump has quite possibly done all the other things said about him and
I am not contesting those. In fact, I generally agree. But, at the
current time, he may be the biggest enemy of the socialists and that
"trumps" them IMO.
>They are still, and over and over again, essentially charging Trump with be=
>ing unpresidential.
Me, too. oBAMA's failures do not excuse Trump's.
I don't like a so-called PhD making statements he can't back up and
runs like the trash he is from my challenge.
I understand people are bored out of their gourd by my continuing to
press the issue. If he is honest and admits he erred OR if others
start condemning him for running like a draft dodger, I will probably
turn him loose.
Hugh
>Hugh, that can=E2=80=99t be answered because there is nothing. With the Ru=
>ssia business the charge by the left was obstruction despite the fact that =
>their key elements to make their case was what was freely handed over by th=
>e White House.
I'm addressing one point - Phat Phart and whether Trump violated the
C. as he said.
Anyone in the world who has a computer can read every time I have
challenged him and he has sidestepped, spun and/or avoided accepting
responsiblity for his statement.
Trump has quite possibly done all the other things said about him and
I am not contesting those. In fact, I generally agree. But, at the
current time, he may be the biggest enemy of the socialists and that
"trumps" them IMO.
>They are still, and over and over again, essentially charging Trump with be=
>ing unpresidential.
Me, too. oBAMA's failures do not excuse Trump's.
I don't like a so-called PhD making statements he can't back up and
runs like the trash he is from my challenge.
I understand people are bored out of their gourd by my continuing to
press the issue. If he is honest and admits he erred OR if others
start condemning him for running like a draft dodger, I will probably
turn him loose.
Hugh
Futbol Phan
Oct 2, 2019, 12:10:54 PM10/2/19
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 2, 2019, 12:15:57 PM10/2/19
to
of lying about it...
I have said it lost money during the last year+ of his tenure. He did
very well on the return pendulum swing from Bush. But add back what I
have withdrawn during Trump's tenure and it's more than all but BO's
best years.
Being an ignorant piece of shit must come naturally to you or you
would not constantly appear as such.
How did Trump violate the C.? Looks like I may have to ask the Ukraine
to document your cowardice and lying. We could get a conviction there.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 2, 2019, 12:24:23 PM10/2/19
to
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 08:09:21 -0700 (PDT), Some dued
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pay attention. It's not a lie if it makes soshalists look bad.
That statement has some merit since there is no way a socialiast could
<theodo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Pay attention. It's not a lie if it makes soshalists look bad.
look good to a real American.
But if I said Phat Phart had rather die than let me keep my guns, that
would probably be lying if I didn't hedge with IMO.
Do you think Trump violated the C.?
Hugh
btpag...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2019, 12:24:57 PM10/2/19
to
I haven’t seen any indication of a legal violation, let alone a violation of the constitution. The closest thing is you alleging that he “invited” a foreign country to influence the election, which is in itself a subjective determination, but even if we follow that logic there is nothing in the transcript or whistleblower complaint that substantiates such a charge. As a matter of fact, there is nothing to substantiate anything negative whatsoever. “Could you look into this” is about as benign as it gets. Everything else is fantasy.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 2, 2019, 3:11:19 PM10/2/19
to
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:10:50 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So even after I respond (again) you persist. Try taking a break from spewing your rhetoric and actually read. I know that taxes your OCD, but give it a try.
I gave you credit for trying.
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>So even after I respond (again) you persist. Try taking a break from spewing your rhetoric and actually read. I know that taxes your OCD, but give it a try.
But you failed to respond to the challenge. How did Trump violate the
C.?
Since you have not had the mental capacity to respond to the question,
let me help you.
"I'm sorry. I misspoke. Trump did not violate the C."
That would allow me to say, "It's over."
Hugh
Futbol Phan
Oct 2, 2019, 3:47:57 PM10/2/19
to
Mark
Oct 2, 2019, 3:49:44 PM10/2/19
to
On 01 Oct 2019, btpag...@gmail.com posted some
news:443d5af7-6c11-44d0...@googlegroups.com:
> Really? Read the transcript again. He does mention Barr. Do you
> know what he doesn’t mention though? Prosecution of any type. So
> by your own definition, Tim, and for at least those 2 reasons it
> appears that you would agree he didn’t do anything wrong here.
Nope he didn't and a certain whistleblower needs a broken glass studded
cork pulled out of his throat starting from the urethra.
Then the healing can begin..
news:443d5af7-6c11-44d0...@googlegroups.com:
> Really? Read the transcript again. He does mention Barr. Do you
> know what he doesn’t mention though? Prosecution of any type. So
> by your own definition, Tim, and for at least those 2 reasons it
> appears that you would agree he didn’t do anything wrong here.
Nope he didn't and a certain whistleblower needs a broken glass studded
cork pulled out of his throat starting from the urethra.
Then the healing can begin..
unclejr
Oct 2, 2019, 3:56:38 PM10/2/19
to
plai...@gmail.com
Oct 2, 2019, 7:11:32 PM10/2/19
to
unclejr
Oct 2, 2019, 7:12:52 PM10/2/19
to
Ken Olson
Oct 3, 2019, 5:26:30 AM10/3/19
to
urethrarooter.
J. Hugh Sullivan
Oct 3, 2019, 8:09:13 AM10/3/19
to
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 12:47:55 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
C. that Trump violated. You have sidestepped by bring up other issues,
but NEVER how he violated the C.
I guess you do know how our ex d-i-l felt - her daughter says she is
also a liar, just like you.
Speaking of "you can't seem to let go", how did Trump violate the C.
shit for brains?
Hugh
<sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:11:19 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:10:50 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >So even after I respond (again) you persist. Try taking a break from spewing your rhetoric and actually read. I know that taxes your OCD, but give it a try.
>>
>> I gave you credit for trying.
>>
>> But you failed to respond to the challenge. How did Trump violate the
>> C.?
>>
>> Since you have not had the mental capacity to respond to the question,
>> let me help you.
>>
>> "I'm sorry. I misspoke. Trump did not violate the C."
>>
>> That would allow me to say, "It's over."
>>
>> Hugh
>
>You're slipping. I have answered your question more than once (as if you didn't know the answer) but you can't seem to let go. Now I know how your d-i-l must have felt.
That is a flat out lie. Not once have you mentioned any portion of the
>On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 2:11:19 PM UTC-5, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 09:10:50 -0700 (PDT), Futbol Phan
>> <sgz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >So even after I respond (again) you persist. Try taking a break from spewing your rhetoric and actually read. I know that taxes your OCD, but give it a try.
>>
>> I gave you credit for trying.
>>
>> But you failed to respond to the challenge. How did Trump violate the
>> C.?
>>
>> Since you have not had the mental capacity to respond to the question,
>> let me help you.
>>
>> "I'm sorry. I misspoke. Trump did not violate the C."
>>
>> That would allow me to say, "It's over."
>>
>> Hugh
>
>You're slipping. I have answered your question more than once (as if you didn't know the answer) but you can't seem to let go. Now I know how your d-i-l must have felt.
C. that Trump violated. You have sidestepped by bring up other issues,
but NEVER how he violated the C.
I guess you do know how our ex d-i-l felt - her daughter says she is
also a liar, just like you.
Speaking of "you can't seem to let go", how did Trump violate the C.
shit for brains?
Hugh
btpag...@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2019, 8:13:21 AM10/3/19
to
Yes, I haven’t yet seen anyone state how he violated the constitution. Even the huge extrapolation that he “invited s foreign power to meddle in our election” doesn’t quite get there.
Speaking of election meddling, if you want to see people downplay the significance of it, just ask about Obama and Israel. All of a sudden “everybody does it”.
Speaking of election meddling, if you want to see people downplay the significance of it, just ask about Obama and Israel. All of a sudden “everybody does it”.
btpag...@gmail.com
Oct 3, 2019, 8:14:59 AM10/3/19
to
And I really don’t think Dems can defend this.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-kurt-volker-dems-schiff-forbid-foreign-affairs-committee-republicans-questions-equal-representation
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-impeachment-kurt-volker-dems-schiff-forbid-foreign-affairs-committee-republicans-questions-equal-representation
0 new messages