Sean

Whistleblower

Recommended Posts

 

And looky here. 

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/rudy-giuliani-reveals-ukrainian-oppo-research-mission-was-requested-by-trump-administration/

and here

https://www.mediaite.com/trump/kellyanne-conway-confirms-trump-withheld-aid-from-ukraine-and-yes-joe-biden-is-relevant-here/

Trump and his spin critters are openly admitting treason wrt Ukraine and Biden.  It a desperate ploy for Trump who is personally disliked by 69 percent of the electorate to drive Dems to impeach him.  He’s doing it in the hope that it will galvanize his base. IMO it will but he over estimates the base (the people who would vote for him if he shot someone on 5th Ave). That figure is probably right at 30%.  I think impeachment won’t save him, he is on a glide path for a historic humiliation in the popular vote and there’s a decent chance he won’t run for re-election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Soreass, the puppy and the fighting chicken missed the new talking point memo

”of course I did it, whatcha gonna do about it” paraphrasing Trump 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Faithful are all huddled up, trying to figure out how to invoke the name “Obama” in the deflection du jour. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Looks like Soreass, the puppy and the fighting chicken missed the new talking point memo

”of course I did it, whatcha gonna do about it” paraphrasing Trump 

If they cared Trump would saw the limb off underneath them they wouldn't support Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

But he gave aid to Ukraine so he can't be friends with Daddy Vladdy, right? 

He can't be doing this for self serving reasons...he was trying to help Russia!  

Wait.  Whoops.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

But he gave aid to Ukraine so he can't be friends with Daddy Vladdy, right? 

He can't be doing this for self serving reasons...he was trying to help Russia!  

Wait.  Whoops.   

Poor Donnie made friends wherever he could take a buck to prop up Trump Companies. It's going to cost him. There will be so many sympathetic go fund me accounts opened, he will be renamed the welfare president. How fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Ahh the collective hand wringing begins... We've got him now! 

Mmmwwaaah, mmwwaah.

How do you feel about the Presidents "yeah, I did it, whatcha gonna do" statement?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Ahh the collective hand wringing begins... We've got him now! 

Mmmwwaaah, mmwwaah.

You don't think the enemy is going to behave the same way when they are in the white house?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You don't think the enemy is going to behave the same way when they are in the white house?  

Now that the political game is impeach everyone for everything? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How do you feel about the Presidents "yeah, I did it, whatcha gonna do" statement?

I have not heard that, can you cite that exact phrase? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

How do you feel about the Presidents "yeah, I did it, whatcha gonna do" statement?

Googled this "Yeah, I did it, whacha gonna do" + Trump" no hits came up. What are you talking about?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Now that the political game is impeach everyone for everything? 

Not to ground everything in reality, but...

Who has been impeached? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Not to ground everything in reality, but...

Who has been impeached? 

If reality and facts were even in the equation we wouldn't be having this conversation... 

All of this is hypothetical but the "impeach Trump" narrative has been around a while. You know that... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Now that the political game is impeach everyone for everything? 

Since Republicans were ready to impeach Senator Clinton two months before she lost the election, this is a poor argument.   

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Now that the political game is impeach everyone for everything? 

Well it's that or come up with policies that Americans will support, so....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lark said:

Since Republicans were ready to impeach Senator Clinton two months before she lost the election, this is a poor argument.   

Who called for Hillary's impeachment? Cite please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

If reality and facts were even in the equation we wouldn't be having this conversation... 

All of this is hypothetical but the "impeach Trump" narrative has been around a while. You know that... 

You do realize that there is a difference between an impeachment inquiry and impeachment, do you not?  

If the administration will not allow any oversight whatsoever from the legislature, there must be an impeachment inquiry to get the information the hard way.  Otherwise, why have a legislature, lets just turn it over to the king. If the impeachment inquiry uncovers something impeachable, like for instance a lie under oath about a blowjob, then they should proceed to impeachment. 

But none of that matters.  If you couldn't be bothered to read a report about a hostile foreign power's attack on our election, why would anything like withholding foreign aid to Ukraine to get them to cook the books against a possible election opponent interest you?  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lark said:

Since Republicans were ready to impeach Senator Clinton two months before she lost the election, this is a poor argument.   

For almost the entirety of the Obama administration there was someone jawboning about impeachment. Oddly Republicans were not doing that about Joe Biden and his Ukraine "corruption".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

For almost the entirety of the Obama administration there was someone jawboning about impeachment. 

They had bumper stickers and everything!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

You do realize that there is a difference between an impeachment inquiry and impeachment, do you not?  

If the administration will not allow any oversight whatsoever from the legislature, there must be an impeachment inquiry to get the information the hard way.  Otherwise, why have a legislature, lets just turn it over to the king. If the impeachment inquiry uncovers something impeachable, like for instance a lie under oath about a blowjob, then they should proceed to impeachment. 

But none of that matters.  If you couldn't be bothered to read a report about a hostile foreign power's attack on our election, why would anything like withholding foreign aid to Ukraine to get them to cook the books against a possible election opponent interest you?  

You keep referring to that. It's just not true. I didn't come to the conclusion as you. Get over it man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

You keep referring to that. It's just not true. I didn't come to the conclusion as you. Get over it man.

There's no conclusion to come to.  The report comes to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

"A" House republican... You accuse me of a weak argument?

You asked. Lark answered. Quit yer bitchin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Awesome. sooner the better.

Sounds like Trump is also going to release the transcript. Also awesome. 

I wonder if Trump's transcript will match the whistleblower's testimony. I hae me doots. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ishmael said:

I wonder if Trump's transcript will match the whistleblower's testimony. I hae me doots. 

There will be no relationship between the documents. A farce. Simply releasing the whistleblower docs to the House committee would be something...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I wonder if Trump's transcript will match the whistleblower's testimony. I hae me doots. 

Me too! One will be a official WH transcript supported by evidence of those who listened to it. The other will be a fabrication of a second hand story... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Me too! One will be a official WH transcript supported by evidence of those who listened to it. The other will be a fabrication of a second hand story... 

Yeah, this White House never edits transcripts to make the President sound better......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

I wonder if Trump's transcript will match the whistleblower's testimony. I hae me doots. 

There is NO WAY anyone in the Trump administration would falsify an official document.  No way at all!

(unless there is a sharpie laying around)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Mike G said:

 

 

That is good, but it doesn't comply with the statute.  Still, it needs to happen.  Put it behind closed doors in closed session.  We don't need to see it.  Let our representatives do their jobs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There is NO WAY anyone in the Trump administration would falsify an official document.  No way at all!

(unless there is a sharpie laying around)

or it goes across the Attorney General's desk.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So if (and under the current admin that may be a big if) the whistle blower is allowed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee and the claim is verified then it's Impeachment time.  Time to trot what have I have written since Jan 2016, not going to end well for Trump. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

That is good, but it doesn't comply with the statute.  Still, it needs to happen.  Put it behind closed doors in closed session.  We don't need to see it.  Let our representatives do their jobs. 

Yes...the first phase was to change the narrative.  Make it not about the whistleblower, but about the call only.

That will soften the blow, and cause the public to lose interest in the actual whistleblower complaint.

 

Getting out in front of bad news is a common theme.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

There is NO WAY anyone in the Trump administration would falsify an official document.  No way at all!

(unless there is a sharpie laying around)

Why bother to falsify if you can simply shred them, per their usual practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mike G said:

Getting out in front of bad news is a common theme.

It’s all the Trump cabinet does, no actual time left to govern, just enough time to absorb and deflect the crisis Du jour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What are the odds that the transcript will have sharpie edits?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mike G said:

What are the odds that the transcript will have sharpie edits?

The edits will have edits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And an 18-minute gap.

More seriously, Shitstain said he'd release a transcript tomorrow and my guess is that's for theatrics. He'll backtrack on that after Nancy's announcement and blame it on ... Nancy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jerseyguy said:

The edits will have edits

Seems like they committed to releasing the full, entire, unredacted report, right?

Did they words they use leave any leeway for "redacted" parts, or "sensitive national security issues?"

Barr isn't known for being super "up front" about the things he releases.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So this is pretty big.  McConnell didn't block.

And R's and D's ALL agreed.

Wonder what "immediately" actually means in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mike G said:

 

So this is pretty big.  McConnell didn't block.

And R's and D's ALL agreed.

Wonder what "immediately" actually means in real life.

Probably similar to a “legislative hour” which bears little, if any, resemblance to a real hour.

If one prefers we can always refer to Alice in Wonderland:

 
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on what we know now:

My money is on John Bolton as the whistleblower. He would have been there listening to the phone call, he's pissed at Trump, and this is a way for him to stay relevant.

The way it's unfolding, with the cooperation of Moscow Mitch and voted for unanimously in the senate (including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Lindsay-the-hypocrite-Graham) it appears that this may be a bipartisan impeachment effort. And perhaps one that's been in the planning for some time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another prediction: Bolton (or whoever the whistleblower is) is going to say that Trump asked the Ukranian president to *fabricate* evidence against Joe Biden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Nice! said:

Another prediction: Bolton (or whoever the whistleblower is) is going to say that Trump asked the Ukranian president to *fabricate* evidence against Joe Biden.

it's ok, everyone does it. Benghazi!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Releasing transcripts with other leaders used to be a line they stood firmly behind.

NOW they're ok with it?

Call me suspicious....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Nice! said:

Based on what we know now:

My money is on John Bolton as the whistleblower. He would have been there listening to the phone call, he's pissed at Trump, and this is a way for him to stay relevant.

The way it's unfolding, with the cooperation of Moscow Mitch and voted for unanimously in the senate (including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Lindsay-the-hypocrite-Graham) it appears that this may be a bipartisan impeachment effort. And perhaps one that's been in the planning for some time.  Maybe.   I think collusion between democrats and republicans is even less likely then between Trump and President Xi.

The IG, Atkinson, is supposed to be one of those guys who does the actual work behind the scenes while the bosses have press conferences.    He’s credited with good judgement.   Hopefully he’s not just reporting the ramblings of a marginalized extremist no longer in Royal favor.   https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/23/politics/ic-ig-michael-atkinson-whistleblower-complaint/index.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take...

As senior director of the WH Situation Room, I managed POTUS head-of-state calls. So, what light can I shed on the Trump-promised phone transcript? /1
1:01 PM · Sep 24, 2019·Twitter Web App
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
Replying to
First off: unless this administration has changed procedures in place for many years, there are no WH tapes of this phone call. As I used to say, the WH became averse to taping Presidential phone calls in about 1974. /2
 
5
 
105
 
565
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
Could there be recordings made by the foreign head-of-state's government or a foreign intelligence service? Sure, particularly when the call is made over a non-secure phone. /3
 
5
 
63
 
350351
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
Could there be recordings made by the US Intelligence Community? No. Law, regulation, and practice forbids such collection of USG officials. Besides, there's no foreign intelligence value in doing so, as the US official is aware of the call's contents. /4
 
5
 
54
 
330
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
Yes, there should be transcripts of the call. It is a long-standing practice, intended to not only memorialize the call but to protect the President against the foreign leader/gov't making egregious claims about the call. /5
 
3
 
60
 
352
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
The White House Situation Room and the responsible NSC directorate develop the transcript. WHSR, which monitors the call, develops a verbatim working transcript which is reviewed and finalized by the NSC directorate and captured in a memorandum of conversation (MEMCON). /6
 
4
 
65
 
306
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
This MEMCON can vary greatly from a lightly edited full transcript to a vaguely worded summary of the call. Sharing of the MEMCON outside of the WH and across gov't has varied from Admin to Admin and the sensitivity of the call, but has always been very limited. /7
 
8
 
65
 
297
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
Who in the USG listens to the call as it happens? This varies from call to call. I managed the very rare call in which only myself and WHSR heard the actual call. In most cases, the call was listened to live by several people. /8
 
2
 
43
 
249
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
Call participants often included the Nat'l Sec Advisor or his/her deputies, the WH Chief of Staff, an appropriate NSC Sr Director and members of his/her staff. Extremely rare for a non-WH person to be present for the call and we never looped in anyone outside the 18 acres. /9
 
5
 
50
 
254
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
 
As to the foreign side of the call, we assumed similar participation. /10
 
1
 
36
 
215
 
 
 
 
 
 
BDbLwkT6_bigger.jpg
 
Could the President make calls on his own directly to a foreign head of state? Sure, but these are very busy people who aren't always available for impromptu calls. The procedures were developed over time for both the convenience and the protection of the President. /11 & Final
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What he said was not what he meant" - Likely Rudy quote in the foreseeable future parroted of course by Hannity et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nice! said:

Based on what we know now:

My money is on John Bolton as the whistleblower. He would have been there listening to the phone call, he's pissed at Trump, and this is a way for him to stay relevant.

The way it's unfolding, with the cooperation of Moscow Mitch and voted for unanimously in the senate (including Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Lindsay-the-hypocrite-Graham) it appears that this may be a bipartisan impeachment effort. And perhaps one that's been in the planning for some time.

Nah, I wouldn't read that into it. The Republicans in the Senate are going to use this vote and the ensuing battle of words to help Trump blow smoke. To them, it's about getting scandal to fling at a Democrat... or two.

- DSK

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Nah, I wouldn't read that into it. The Republicans in the Senate are going to use this vote and the ensuing battle of words to help Trump blow smoke. To them, it's about getting scandal to fling at a Democrat... or two.

- DSK

Yup. There will be enough shit flying through the air to obscure the sun. The Party will make sure that nobody will be able to focus on the fact that the President has already admitted trying to get a foreign leader to dig dirt on an opponent. We will hear about everything else. 

Under no circumstances will the IGIC be allowed to testify to the intel committees without an assertion of some kind of bullshit privilege claim. No way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yup. There will be enough shit flying through the air to obscure the sun. The Party will make sure that nobody will be able to focus on the fact that the President has already admitted trying to get a foreign leader to dig dirt on an opponent. We will hear about everything else. 

Under no circumstances will the IGIC be allowed to testify to the intel committees without an assertion of some kind of bullshit privilege claim. No way. 

An opponent's son......?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He keeps digging..

Edit...

Why is the personal lawyer of the president doing this type of job?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

Yup. There will be enough shit flying through the air to obscure the sun. The Party will make sure that nobody will be able to focus on the fact that the President has already admitted trying to get a foreign leader to dig dirt on an opponent. We will hear about everything else. 

Under no circumstances will the IGIC be allowed to testify to the intel committees without an assertion of some kind of bullshit privilege claim. No way. 

Is that a crime?  If there was a quid pro quo as originally reported I’d agree with you.  But if he asks the new president to look into potential corruption involving a previous VP’s son.  While over the top on the cringe scale I don’t see the crime. 

But I'm willing to read the transcript, listen to the whistleblower and see   what Pelosie’s hearings turn up. 

Good political theater 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ishmael said:

I wonder if Trump's transcript will match the whistleblower's testimony. I hae me doots. 

He has his best people on it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Mike G said:

He keeps digging..

Edit...

Why is the personal lawyer of the president doing this type of job?

 

 

 

Some serious ass-covering going on

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Is that a crime?  If there was a quid pro quo as originally reported I’d agree with you.  But if he asks the new president to look into potential corruption involving a previous VP’s son.  While over the top on the cringe scale I don’t see the crime. 

But I'm willing to read the transcript, listen to the whistleblower and see   what Pelosie’s hearings turn up. 

Good political theater 

"Nice military appropriation ya got there, be a shame if something happened to it." 

Where's the threat?!? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mark K said:

"Nice military appropriation ya got there, be a shame if something happened to it." 

Where's the threat?!? 

If he said that  I support the impeachment hearing, But all we have right now is pure speculation based on media reports.  

Pelosi was down playing that claim today, saying even if he never brought up funding it doesn’t change anything. 

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that the transcript of President Trump's call with Ukraine's leader doesn't need to show a "quid pro quo" in withholding military aid in order for the president's actions to be considered wrong.  

"If the president brings up, he wants them to investigate something of his political opponent, that is self-evident that it is not right. We don't ask foreign governments to help us in our elections," Pelosi said at the Atlantic Festival. "There is no requirement there be a quid pro quo in the conversation."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Some serious ass-covering going on

If this shit went down, it was verrrry risky to pull on a Russian politician. Yeah, he's a Uke, but the Ukraine is a damn Russian place. 

Russians are street-smart. The first rule of the street is "Thou shalt not let thyself be punked." That as an sub-rule of "...but discretion is the better part of valor", of course, but they know that it's a BFD. Once a punk always a punk. 

A Russian thinks very deeply before he allows himself to be punked and this Uke President knew the money had been appropriated by Congress.  Trump was playing a weak hand....and is a phony tough-guy.  Phony-tough and dumb is a bad combo in that part of the world.        

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

If he said that  I support the impeachment hearing, But all we have right now is pure speculation based on media reports.  

Pelosi was down playing that claim today, saying even if he never brought up funding it doesn’t change anything. 

 

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday that the transcript of President Trump's call with Ukraine's leader doesn't need to show a "quid pro quo" in withholding military aid in order for the president's actions to be considered wrong.  

"If the president brings up, he wants them to investigate something of his political opponent, that is self-evident that it is not right. We don't ask foreign governments to help us in our elections," Pelosi said at the Atlantic Festival. "There is no requirement there be a quid pro quo in the conversation."

 

 

He froze $400, million in aid to the Ukraine a few days before he called them. Fact.

no one knew why , other countries had Aid blocked then reinstated..but not the Ukraine.

All very mysterious..until now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-biden-ukraine.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, The Joker said:

If there was a quid pro quo as originally reported I’d agree with you

Are you saying that because the deal offered wasn’t consummated there’s no crime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only see bipartisan support for this investigation if Trump committed a true criminal act, like lying about getting a blowjob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What planet will the Joke find himself on in the morning? He's certainly abandoned this one. How long can you keep that level of delusion going?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Sean said:

Are you saying that because the deal offered wasn’t consummated there’s no crime?

No I’m saying the reports I’ve heard say the money was never part of the conversation.  In other words there was no deal discussed.  

Even Pelosi has backed off on that claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

What planet will the Joke find himself on in the morning? He's certainly abandoned this one. How long can you keep that level of delusion going?

Indeed we will see how this plays out.  

Transcript is being released

Whistle  blower being given permission to testify. 

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/24/white-house-let-trump-whistleblower-testify-report/

The truth will come out

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Indeed we will see how this plays out.  

Transcript is being released

Whistle  blower being given permission to testify. 

https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/24/white-house-let-trump-whistleblower-testify-report/

The truth will come out

 

The truth will come out. Is it too soon to start calling Donnie, the former president Trump?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

The truth will come out. Is it too soon to start calling Donnie, the former president Trump?

Well it was predicted he wouldn’t last 6 months when he won in 2016.  

Then the Mueller report was a sure thing.  

Now it looks like the Dems are worried about  winning in 2020 so we are back to impeachment as a way to get him out.  

This time for sure ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for those RW talking points.  It's a huge time saver having you carry the water for Trump and Company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Well it was predicted he wouldn’t last 6 months when he won in 2016.  

Then the Mueller report was a sure thing.  

Now it looks like the Dems are worried about  winning in 2020 so we are back to impeachment as a way to get him out.  

This time for sure ....

LOL, last I heard the only thing Dems were worried about is how large they were going to win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, d'ranger said:

Thanks for those RW talking points.  It's a huge time saver having you carry the water for Trump and Company.

Tell us again how you were watching Rachel and switched over to see Carlson on Fox. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Tell us again how you were watching Rachel and switched over to see Carlson on Fox. 

Why? Did I type too fast last time? ok, slowly           I spent 2 minutes or so           on Rachel            and then          maybe 10          to       15    minutes       on Tucker Carlson    and that  was broken into           3      segments          to catch           different       "guests". 

Was the first time I ever watched either program.  If necessary and you are polite I will try larger fonts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Tell us again how you were watching Rachel and switched over to see Carlson on Fox. 

Television doesn't have the same freedom in Russia does it? Here in the US of A, we have many channels, and you can even DVR programs and play them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, The Joker said:

Tell us again how you were watching Rachel and switched over to see Carlson on Fox. 

I didn’t happen to do it but with my You Tube TV subscription I can pause her show live,  jump over to whatever channel I want (live) and then rejoin Rachel’s show either where I left it or live. I can do this on my TV or if away from home anywhere there’s WiFi on my phone or IPad.  I guess at the bot farm they only have cable and it only shows Faux news.

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only whistle blower that got a POTUS impeached was named Monica 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, d'ranger said:

Why? Did I type too fast last time? ok, slowly           I spent 2 minutes or so           on Rachel            and then          maybe 10          to       15    minutes       on Tucker Carlson    and that  was broken into           3      segments          to catch           different       "guests". 

Was the first time I ever watched either program.  If necessary and you are polite I will try larger fonts. 

Sure you did. You live in Tx

The Tucker show ENDS at 8cdt The Maddow  show STARTS at 9cdt

Spin away 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Fakenews said:

I didn’t happen to do it but with my You Tube TV subscription I can pause her show live,  jump over to whatever channel I want (live) and then rejoin Rachel’s show either where I left it or live. I can do this on my TV or if away from home anywhere there’s WiFi on my phone or IPad.  I guess at the bot farm they only have cable and it only shows Faux news.

SAD!

Do you have a time machine hooked up to your tv?

The Carlson show ends when the Maddow show starts   Hard to watch both live, but I’m sure you will figure out a way to claim it’s possible for someone who never watched either show before and claims he watched both on a whim. 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, The Joker said:

Do you have a time machine hooked up to your tv?

The Carlson show ends when the Maddow show starts   Hard to watch both live, but I’m sure you will figure out a way to claim it’s possible for someone who never watched either show before and claims he watched both on a whim. 

  

Like Isaid I can pause her show and enjoin it any time I want.  It’s live to me.  This is a particularly weak straw for you to be grasping at but as the Trump’s admin’s self destruction spin out of control it’s all you’ve got.

SAD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites