Fired Ambassador to the Ukraine claims she was told to tweet praise of president to save her job

[brycejones]

I don't have a team.

Your posting history would indicate otherwise. I don't think its unfair to say you are on Team Trump. You've defended him repeatedly here and voted for him.

 

[Meghan54]

Your posting history would indicate otherwise. I don't think its unfair to say you are on Team Trump. You've defended him repeatedly here and voted for him.

He only voted for Trump because the Democrats made him do it. The Dems were mean/unfair to Bernie and fielded Clinton as the other major candidate. That's what drove him to vote for a complete buffoon, a complete liar, and a con man. Because the Dems were mean to Bernie.

 

[Jhhnn]

I don't see any reason that he wouldn't give her advice on his own accord...

Rudy? Who knows he is pretty much a nut job anyway...

Rudy was on a mission for Trump.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

I don't have a team.

You do have an opposing team, though. When there's only two teams, that puts you on one by default.

 

[HomerJS]

I don't see any reason that he wouldn't give her advice on his own accord...

Rudy? Who knows he is pretty much a nut job anyway...

So given everything we know you have no idea if Rudy is working for Trump? Volker testified

Volker said he raised concerns with "a number of people" from May to August 2019 about the role played in U.S.-Ukraine relations by Rudy Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer, and that he had never seen someone in a position like Giuliani's play a similar part in U.S. foreign relations.

Volker raised concerns about Giuliani with "a number of people" for months

Kurt Volker testified that he had expressed misgivings about Rudy Giuliani's influence on the president's view of Ukraine

www.cbsnews.com

Also Rudy himself has stated he works for Trump.

You still don't know if Rudy works for Trump??

 

[Jaskalas]

Gee Martha, I don't know if Trump's personal lawyer is in any way connected to Trump.

 

[zinfamous]

You don't know that. That is a guess or assumption on your part. It was stupid advice even if it would have probably been effective with Trumps personality.



Yes I agree that you are assuming as usual.

You are also misinterpreting me when I point out the obvious such as making this sound like Trump directed her to tweet when in fact it was Mr. Sondland. Instead you guys assume to make it fit your narrative.

By your standard, no one will ever know anything. Very few things in life are ever completely, indisputably known, when it comes to criminal (or any) type of justification. You are advocating for an evidentiary standard well beyond what our court system has ever required for establishing guilt or innocence. This is plainly obvious, and is exactly how GOP leaders have been trying to poison the brains of their mewling acolytes wrg to anything Trump.

Strings of circumstantial evidence is actually what evidence is. Look at it a different way, a "locktight" case is when final, damning evidence can be reduced down to individual, but observable, testable, logical pieces of individual circumstantial evidence that together lead to a final, fundamentally irrefutable conclusion.

"Knowing something" when it comes to admissible evidence, is exactly connecting all of the dots on all of these "strange coincidences" that have increasingly similar connections to the point that the only rational explanation is "the crime."

I mean, you guys fundamentally believe that Hillary did "all of this crime" without even a single nugget of evidence that any of these bizarre crimes ever occurred. Every single one of you. You believe this, and there is never any single circumstantial evidence that can't alone be explained away by it's own more reasonable argument. That is just a plain fact.

I'm baffled why you guys hold a lifelong criminal like Donald Fucking Trump up to some standard that has never been required of any court proceeding. I don't get this. But you seem to advocate emptying all of the prisons in this country, because not one person would ever be sent to jail, or convicted of anything if your standard were valid. That is plain truth.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't have a team.

Based on the observable evidence of your very public testimony on these forums across many posts, you clearly do.

 

[thilanliyan]

I find Mr. Sondland's mysterious memory lapses disturbing.

Sound like he is making sh!t up as it goes along.

Or he realized the jig was up when several others laid out the story and implicated him (texts).

Which part do you think he's making up?

 

[rommelrommel]

You do have an opposing team, though. When there's only two teams, that puts you on one by default.

I guess the water boy might feel like he’s not “on” the team.

 

[tweaker2]

Trumpy didn't tell her directly so it doesn't count! But that isn't what he really said because reasons and secrets.

This is exactly how a mob boss tries to keep his hands clean but fails in the attempt.

This is the epitaph that I think should be chiselled onto the door of the mausoleum he will eventually be interred in: "The mob boss that couldn't keep his mouth shut".

 

[HomerJS]

So given everything we know you have no idea if Rudy is working for Trump? Volker testified

Volker raised concerns about Giuliani with "a number of people" for months

Kurt Volker testified that he had expressed misgivings about Rudy Giuliani's influence on the president's view of Ukraine

www.cbsnews.com

Also Rudy himself has stated he works for Trump.

You still don't know if Rudy works for Trump??

still waiting

 

[darkswordsman17]

By your standard, no one will ever know anything. Very few things in life are ever completely, indisputably known, when it comes to criminal (or any) type of justification. You are advocating for an evidentiary standard well beyond what our court system has ever required for establishing guilt or innocence. This is plainly obvious, and is exactly how GOP leaders have been trying to poison the brains of their mewling acolytes wrg to anything Trump.

Strings of circumstantial evidence is actually what evidence is. Look at it a different way, a "locktight" case is when final, damning evidence can be reduced down to individual, but observable, testable, logical pieces of individual circumstantial evidence that together lead to a final, fundamentally irrefutable conclusion.

"Knowing something" when it comes to admissible evidence, is exactly connecting all of the dots on all of these "strange coincidences" that have increasingly similar connections to the point that the only rational explanation is "the crime."

I mean, you guys fundamentally believe that Hillary did "all of this crime" without even a single nugget of evidence that any of these bizarre crimes ever occurred. Every single one of you. You believe this, and there is never any single circumstantial evidence that can't alone be explained away by it's own more reasonable argument. That is just a plain fact.

I'm baffled why you guys hold a lifelong criminal like Donald Fucking Trump up to some standard that has never been required of any court proceeding. I don't get this. But you seem to advocate emptying all of the prisons in this country, because not one person would ever be sent to jail, or convicted of anything if your standard were valid. That is plain truth.

Ding, ding, ding. That's exactly what people like him believe. They think all knowledge is arbitrary and subjective. Except their own obviously.

Gives them an easy out for explaining how they never know what they're talking about on any subject. But they sure want to discuss things, and if you don't play their way (where they demand you backup everything with information that they agree with, but they never have to explain themselves or if their explanation doesn't make basic logical sense or even contradicts what they've previously claimed is their explanation, well that's on you not them as, well knowledge isn't knowledge its just opinion).

I just want to remind you that you can refute the lies while not even addressing these people. They're not worth addressing. Their lies often aren't either, and while I normally agree with the "if left unchecked it'll grow into a worse problem" I'm starting to question that, simply because they seem to view refutation as reinforcement of its validity.

 

[Jhhnn]

Ding, ding, ding. That's exactly what people like him believe. They think all knowledge is arbitrary and subjective. Except their own obviously.

Gives them an easy out for explaining how they never know what they're talking about on any subject. But they sure want to discuss things, and if you don't play their way (where they demand you backup everything with information that they agree with, but they never have to explain themselves or if their explanation doesn't make basic logical sense or even contradicts what they've previously claimed is their explanation, well that's on you not them as, well knowledge isn't knowledge its just opinion).

I just want to remind you that you can refute the lies while not even addressing these people. They're not worth addressing. Their lies often aren't either, and while I normally agree with the "if left unchecked it'll grow into a worse problem" I'm starting to question that, simply because they seem to view refutation as reinforcement of its validity.

Of course. Whatever gets the liberal tears is a good thing. It's what they live for.

 

[pcgeek11]

Your posting history would indicate otherwise. I don't think its unfair to say you are on Team Trump. You've defended him repeatedly here and voted for him.

What "Team" are you on?

 

[pcgeek11]

He only voted for Trump because the Democrats made him do it. The Dems were mean/unfair to Bernie and fielded Clinton as the other major candidate. That's what drove him to vote for a complete buffoon, a complete liar, and a con man. Because the Dems were mean to Bernie.

Not even close.

 

[pcgeek11]

You do have an opposing team, though. When there's only two teams, that puts you on one by default.

No it doesn't.

It isn't a game.

 

[pcgeek11]

So given everything we know you have no idea if Rudy is working for Trump? Volker testified

Volker raised concerns about Giuliani with "a number of people" for months

Kurt Volker testified that he had expressed misgivings about Rudy Giuliani's influence on the president's view of Ukraine

www.cbsnews.com

Also Rudy himself has stated he works for Trump.

You still don't know if Rudy works for Trump??

You asked me: " Do you also think Rudy was acting on his own? "

Since you gave me no particulars about the "acting" ( Note: You didn't say working for Trump in your question.) I answered that who knows, he is a nut job.

We all know that Rudy is Trumps lawyer, don't be obtuse. But when you say is he is "acting on his own" I would have to say that sometimes he is sometimes he isn't.

 

[Jhhnn]

You asked me: " Do you also think Rudy was acting on his own? "

Since you gave me no particulars about the "acting" ( Note: You didn't say working for Trump in your question.) I answered that who knows, he is a nut job.

We all know that Rudy is Trumps lawyer, don't be obtuse. But when you say is he is "acting on his own" I would have to say that sometimes he is sometimes he isn't.

Trump made it perfectly clear to Zelensky that Rudy was working for him. Rudy has also acknowledged that he was.

 

[BoomerD]

A chunk of them can’t do that, they are waiting for the beautiful clean cole to come back.

Which cole?

Nat King?

Natalie?

Old King?



Oh...COAL...yeah, Trump sold them a Brooklyn Bridge there, didn't he?

 

[pcgeek11]

Trump made it perfectly clear to Zelensky that Rudy was working for him. Rudy has also acknowledged that he was.

For Christ sake I didn't say Rudy wasn't working for Trump. Go back and follow the post between me and Homer.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Not even close.

oh really? plz enlighten us...

 

[cytg111]

I don't see any reason that he wouldn't give her advice on his own accord...

Rudy? Who knows he is pretty much a nut job anyway...

Stop watching Fox. Its rot.
Your vetting standards is not the same across the board, thats why the rest of these good fellas be wasting their time with you.

 

[pcgeek11]

oh really? plz enlighten us...

I have posted more than once why I voted for Trump on this forum. Use the search function.

 

[Ichinisan]

sedition should be punished by death. We wouldnt have any more of it if you put a few of these guys and gals down.

You want someone like Trump to be able to decide who is guilty of sedition and punishable by death? Really?