GOD BLESS AND THANK YOU PRESIDENT TRUMP !!!
-
-
?
WSS
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
-
Getting closer and closer to my cal level proof that the Donald is the Devil.??
Multiple sources with multiple examples and all just as impeccable. ??
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
-
Whatever you say. First of all the charges are bullshit and the proof is bullshit. Arguing about it really doesn't change anything so realizing you are on a fixed income is there anything you care to wager on whether or not the president is impeached and removed from office?
Furthermore, as stupid as they are, I don't think Democrats really think they're going to snare him. Plan from the start was just to keep the shite echoing in the news media hoping it would give them a chance to win the White House with one of these ridiculous candidates.
WSS
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
-
You do realize this discussion is about the pardoning of at least one person (1LT Lorance) already convicted for war crimes right? It's not about the impeachment at all.
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
-
So maybe the words in bold at the bottom of the quote were a mistake or what?
WSS
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
But my feelings are so powerful......and and and
-
But my feelings are so powerful......and and and
But my feelings are so powerful......and and and
-
Actually that was just for you for changing my quote into bold letters, "That's an easy statement to make but you have to back it up" ?
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
-
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've been watching the impeachment sham and every witness to date has said they know nothing of a quid pro quo.
Morrison, Volker undercut claims of 'quid pro quo,' 'bribery' and 'cover-up' in pivotal day of testimony
Republicans sounded a celebratory note as Democrats' House impeachment inquiry began wrapping up another day of public hearings on Tuesday evening, saying the day's witnesses had served only to repeatedly highlight fundamental problems in the case against President Trump.
“Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?" House Intelligence Committee ranking member Devin Nunes, R-Calif., asked at one point in Tuesday's hearing.
Former National Security Council aide Tim Morrison: "No."
U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Kurt Volker: “No."
Later, Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., hit the same notes in asking the witnesses about Trump's fateful July 25 call with Ukraine's leader: "Mr. Morrison, you were on that call, and there was no quid pro quo, correct? No bribery? No extortion?"
"Correct," Morrison replied in response to each question.
"And Ambassador Volker, I presume you got a readout of the call. ... Was there any reference to withholding aid? Any reference to bribery? Any reference to quid pro quo? Any reference to extortion?"
"No, there was not," Volker replied, again and again.
The answers underscored a problem facing House Democrats as their impeachment inquiry continues into its second week of public hearings: As more witnesses testify, the more soundbites emerge that may help Republicans and the Trump campaign argue that the proceedings are politically motivated theater, long in the works and foreshadowed openly by Democrats for months, if not years.
-
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
-
Yes you do tex. If you want to accuse the president or Hillary or me or anybody else at Raider then I expect you to have hard-and-fast evidence. Sorry. Just hatting the guy isn't quite good enough.
WSS
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
I've provided evidence in the past but it just gets ignored, so why bother? You can start with his record inaugural crowds and follow the over 10,000 and counting if you wish. Or you can take the "No quid pro quo" which is his most recent lie of the day which several people under oath have said is otherwise the case. But usually what happens is then the messengers get attacked rather than actual examination of the message. Like I said. Why bother?
Faulty, biased, and hysterical claims are not evidence. There is absolutely nobody saying that there is a quid pro quo at all. Not even napoleon vindman said there was. Why bother, indeed, when you are not trying to be the least bit genuine?
Listen to Pense's National Security Advisor.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/pence-national-security-adviser-trump-zelensky-call
Pence's national security adviser says he heard 'nothing wrong or improper' on Trump-Zelensky call
Vice President Mike Pence’s national security adviser – and the supervisor of one of the people who testified Tuesday in the House’s impeachment inquiry – said he heard “nothing wrong or improper” during the July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that is at the heart of the impeachment probe.
Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg wrote in a letter released by the White House on Tuesday that he had “no concerns” about the phone call and backed up Jennifer Williams’ testimony from earlier in the day. Williams is a State Department employee detailed to Pence’s office.
“I heard nothing wrong or improper on the call,” Kellogg wrote. “I had and have no concerns.”
Kellogg added: “Ms. Williams was also on the call, and as she testified, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to me, her direct supervisor, regarding the call. In fact, she never reported any personal or professional concerns to any other member of the vice president’s staff, including our chief of staff and the vice president.”
-
Say, he's a highly decorated fellow Vietnam Veteran. Care to re-evaluate, Tex? Admit you are wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Kellogg
Top Combat Infantryman Badge 1st row Army Distinguished Service Medal Silver Star Medal 2nd row Defense Superior Service Medal Legion of Merit w/ one oak leaf cluster -
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Of course it's a waste of my time to add plenty more. Closed minds.
-
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Of course it's a waste of my time to add plenty more. Closed minds.
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Yet you provide us with a link to not only the New York Times but slate.
WSS
-
Like I've said before. Totally biased sources and pile ons. That's what is wrong with the Trump political board. That's why very few ever come ever here anymore. Closed minds brainwashing each other hearing and reading only what supports the liar in chief. So as Steve suggested here are other points of view.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/11/rex-tillerson-trump-quid-pro-quo-ukraine-wrong.html
https://www.vox.com/2019/11/12/20954985/impeachment-trump-quid-pro-quo
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/05/us/politics/impeachment-trump.html
Yet you provide us with a link to not only the New York Times but slate.
WSS
Yet you provide us with a link to not only the New York Times but slate.
WSS
And how does that differ from the biased sources above that? I just made my point without having to prove the Donald is the Devil with biased sources. I proved the opposite of what the pile on pussys proved with theirs by using my own. And USA Today/Vox are there as well. A bit less biased that the others.
And cal-have LtGen Kellogg come testify under oath then. Trump will not allow it. Nor will he himself ever testify under oath in person any more than he will ever release financial records he said he would release for years.
-
Yet you provide us with a link to not only the New York Times but slate.
WSS
And how does that differ from the biased sources above that? I just made my point without having to prove the Donald is the Devil with biased sources. I proved the opposite of what the pile on pussys proved with theirs by using my own. And USA Today/Vox are there as well. A bit less biased that the others.
And cal-have LtGen Kellogg come testify under oath then. Trump will not allow it. Nor will he himself ever testify under oath in person any more than he will ever release financial records he said he would release for years.
And how does that differ from the biased sources above that? I just made my point without having to prove the Donald is the Devil with biased sources. I proved the opposite of what the pile on pussys proved with theirs by using my own. And USA Today/Vox are there as well. A bit less biased that the others.
And cal-have LtGen Kellogg come testify under oath then. Trump will not allow it. Nor will he himself ever testify under oath in person any more than he will ever release financial records he said he would release for years.
Biased news sources are pretty much the order of the day here. I have no more respect the New York Times than I do for The Blaze. as a matter of fact possibly less because we know exactly where the blaze and slate are coming from. Nyt pretends to be a real news source and not just a depository for hack pieces.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
However since you did not read it. Here is how Sondland changed his testimony from what he had previously said under oath behind closed doors. You can just read the quotes frrom his written new release if you wish.
The disclosure from Gordon D. Sondland, an ally of Mr. Trump who is the United States ambassador to the European Union, confirmed his role in laying out a quid pro quo to Ukraine that conditioned the release of security assistance from the United States on the country’s willingness to say it was investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats.
That admission, included in a four-page sworn statement released on Tuesday, directly contradicted his testimony to investigators last month, when he said he “never” thought there was any precondition on the aid.
“I said that resumption of the U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anticorruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks,” Mr. Sondland said in the new statement, which was made public by the House committees leading the inquiry, along with the transcript of his original testimony.
Continue reading the main storyMr. Sondland’s disclosure appeared intended to insulate him from accusations that he intentionally misled Congress during his earlier testimony, in which he frequently said he could not recall key details and events under scrutiny by impeachment investigatorIt also provided Democrats with a valuable piece of evidence from a critical witness to fill out the picture of their abuse-of-power case against the president. Unlike other officials who have offered damaging testimony about Mr. Trump, Mr. Sondland is a political supporter of the president who has interacted directly with him.The question of a quid pro quo is at the heart of the impeachment investigation into Mr. Trump, which turns on whether the president abused his power when he asked a foreign power to target his political rivals.
Mr. Trump initially strongly denied there was any quid pro quo involving Ukraine, and numerous Republicans took up that refrain. But as the inquiry has unfolded, he and Republican lawmakers have gradually begun to move away from that position. Instead they have adopted the argument that a president insisting on a quid pro quo from a foreign government to benefit himself politically may be of concern, but it is not — in the words of Mr. Trump himself — “an impeachable event.”
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
_ribbon.svg){kind=small}
_ribbon.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=icon}
.svg){kind=small}
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login