Trump To Release Call Transcript

[iceberg]

as I said....and they will both spin it to match their narrative no matter what the actual words are

How does one spin a word-for-word transcript that shows no quid-pro-quo occurred, as the Democrats so desperately claim, based off of a whistle blower's 2nd-hand account?

give 'em time. if one thing i've learned about our political system these days is never underestimate their ability to outstupid themselves.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I don't know what you idiots are reading, but it's in black and white below:

Trump is going around the State Dept and sending a private citizen (Giuliani) to conspire with a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election by asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden.

You'll have to first pull your heads out of your asses to see this, though.


View attachment 280960

This is what an indictment document looks like

The entire Washington Post article is an example indictment document.

Yes, in fantasy island.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

I don't know what you idiots are reading, but it's in black and white below:

Trump is going around the State Dept and sending a private citizen (Giuliani) to conspire with a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election by asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden.

You'll have to first pull your heads out of your asses to see this, though.


View attachment 280960

as the risk of an infraction...

**** off.

Oh, sorry little snowflake, your iceberg is melting.

Even the Wall Street Journal agrees with my assessment. Given that Rupert Murdoch, the owner, and Trump are friends, I bet Murdoch's got butt hurt too.

Transcript Sheds Light on Trump’s Ukraine Call

""President Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to “look into” former Vice President Joe Biden’s son and said he would direct his personal lawyer and attorney general to reach out to Mr. Zelensky to “get to the bottom of it,” according to a transcript of a July phone call released by the White House.....""""

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/...rainetranscript09.2019.pdf?mod=article_inline

Not even Nixon used his personal lawyers to do his dirty work. Jesus, he's looking like a choir boy in comparison to Trump.

 

[easyt65]

This is what an indictment document looks like
The entire Washington Post article is an example indictment document.

The 1st Loud >POP< was the released transcript / the sound of the latest Dem / Snowflake desperate narrative bursting. The 2nd loud >Pop< will be the sound of you / Democrats / snowflakes pulling your collective heads out of your desperate individual arses...



[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcanadafreepress.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fcover102617.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcanadafreepress.com%2Farticle%2Fscreaming-at-sky-activists-to-drown-out-pathetic-squeaks-from-the-clinton-c&docid=t4IOJTSUp7kriM&tbnid=MEn2BMPzz1DL7M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjjlqyUmezkAhXuc98KHXQoAlcQMwiqAShPME8..i&w=700&h=294&bih=855&biw=1233&q=Democrats%20scream%20at%20the%20sky&ved=0ahUKEwjjlqyUmezkAhXuc98KHXQoAlcQMwiqAShPME8&iact=mrc&uact=8']



[/URL]

 

[Harpy Eagle]

as I said....and they will both spin it to match their narrative no matter what the actual words are

How does one spin a word-for-word transcript that shows no quid-pro-quo occurred, as the Democrats so desperately claim, based off of a whistle blower's 2nd-hand account?

give 'em time. if one thing i've learned about our political system these days is never underestimate their ability to outstupid themselves.

So, I assume you read them. Do you see anything in it that is "odd" at all? or anything that would give you pause to stop and think about?

There were a couple.

First, at the time of the call I do not recall anyone talking about Biden and his son, yet Trump said it was a big thing.

But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

I don't know what you idiots are reading, but it's in black and white below:

Trump is going around the State Dept and sending a private citizen (Giuliani) to conspire with a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election by asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden.

You'll have to first pull your heads out of your asses to see this, though.


View attachment 280960

Seems odd to move the conversation from military aid to providing information on Biden

And the conversation indicates it wasn't the FIRST one they had on the subject, either.

 

[iceberg]

as I said....and they will both spin it to match their narrative no matter what the actual words are

How does one spin a word-for-word transcript that shows no quid-pro-quo occurred, as the Democrats so desperately claim, based off of a whistle blower's 2nd-hand account?

give 'em time. if one thing i've learned about our political system these days is never underestimate their ability to outstupid themselves.

So, I assume you read them. Do you see anything in it that is "odd" at all? or anything that would give you pause to stop and think about?

There were a couple.

First, at the time of the call I do not recall anyone talking about Biden and his son, yet Trump said it was a big thing.

But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion.

maybe. like i said if you dig into just about anything these days you'll find something to get upset about.

as for what you and i hear in the news, that doesn't mean that's what our politicians are discussing on these events. now, is this enough to go IMPEACH OVER? it wouldn't seem so. trump does a lot of crap that he's used to doing NOT president and at his age that's hard to just swap gears and keep going. that said, i can see your point about this being more personal.

but if we make those assumptions then the assumption that biden got his son off is also "in play" as something neither should have been involved in from a sheer conflict of interest perspective.

flush it all out and lets dust off the constitution and start over.

 

[rightwinger]

I don't know what you idiots are reading, but it's in black and white below:

Trump is going around the State Dept and sending a private citizen (Giuliani) to conspire with a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election by asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden.

You'll have to first pull your heads out of your asses to see this, though.


View attachment 280960

Seems odd to move the conversation from military aid to providing information on Biden

And the conversation indicates it wasn't the FIRST one they had on the subject, either.

In the context of the conversation, that seems like an awkward favor to ask

 

[iceberg]

I don't know what you idiots are reading, but it's in black and white below:

Trump is going around the State Dept and sending a private citizen (Giuliani) to conspire with a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election by asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden.

You'll have to first pull your heads out of your asses to see this, though.


View attachment 280960

Seems odd to move the conversation from military aid to providing information on Biden

And the conversation indicates it wasn't the FIRST one they had on the subject, either.

In the context of the conversation, that seems like an awkward favor to ask

but surely nowhere near as bad as making a country fire a prosecutor who is investigation your son.

play on the same playing field or get out.

 

[easyt65]

So, I assume you read them. Do you see anything in it that is "odd" at all? or anything that would give you pause to stop and think about?

There were a couple.

First, at the time of the call I do not recall anyone talking about Biden and his son, yet Trump said it was a big thing.

But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion.

1. Hillary brought up the Biden scandal in 2016 to ensure Joe did not enter the race. It was big at the time, and until now leftist media had been able to bury it / make it go away...until the f*ed up and decide to resurrect it to attack Trump...and did not see how this was going to blow up in their faces.

2. Of course you are desperately reading into it, franticly searching for things that don't add up. The only thing that has to add up is that another Leftist False Accusation of some quid-pro-quo did NOT exist, and the President did NOT engage in Extortion, as Joe confessed to on video.

Yet another 'We've got him now' moment goes down in flames, leaving Dems and snowflakes devastated again.
https://www.google.com/imgres?imgur...zkAhXuc98KHXQoAlcQMwisAShRMFE&iact=mrc&uact=8


[URL='https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcanadafreepress.com%2Fimages%2Fuploads%2Fcover102617.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fcanadafreepress.com%2Farticle%2Fscreaming-at-sky-activists-to-drown-out-pathetic-squeaks-from-the-clinton-c&docid=t4IOJTSUp7kriM&tbnid=MEn2BMPzz1DL7M%3A&vet=10ahUKEwjjlqyUmezkAhXuc98KHXQoAlcQMwiqAShPME8..i&w=700&h=294&bih=855&biw=1233&q=Democrats%20scream%20at%20the%20sky&ved=0ahUKEwjjlqyUmezkAhXuc98KHXQoAlcQMwiqAShPME8&iact=mrc&uact=8']





[/URL]
https://www.orlandosentinel.com/new...iticalpulse+(Central+Florida+Political+Pulse)

 

[skews13]

I don't know what you idiots are reading, but it's in black and white below:

Trump is going around the State Dept and sending a private citizen (Giuliani) to conspire with a foreign country to interfere with the 2020 election by asking the Ukraine to investigate Biden.

You'll have to first pull your heads out of your asses to see this, though.


View attachment 280960

as the risk of an infraction...

**** off.

Oh, sorry little snowflake, your iceberg is melting.

Even the Wall Street Journal agrees with my assessment. Given that Rupert Murdoch, the owner, and Trump are friends, I bet Murdoch's got butt hurt too.

Transcript Sheds Light on Trump’s Ukraine Call

""President Trump asked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, to “look into” former Vice President Joe Biden’s son and said he would direct his personal lawyer and attorney general to reach out to Mr. Zelensky to “get to the bottom of it,” according to a transcript of a July phone call released by the White House.....""""

https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/...rainetranscript09.2019.pdf?mod=article_inline

Not even Nixon used his personal lawyers to do his dirty work. Jesus, he's looking like a choir boy in comparison to Trump.

The spin is getting out of control.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

as I said....and they will both spin it to match their narrative no matter what the actual words are

How does one spin a word-for-word transcript that shows no quid-pro-quo occurred, as the Democrats so desperately claim, based off of a whistle blower's 2nd-hand account?

give 'em time. if one thing i've learned about our political system these days is never underestimate their ability to outstupid themselves.

So, I assume you read them. Do you see anything in it that is "odd" at all? or anything that would give you pause to stop and think about?

There were a couple.

First, at the time of the call I do not recall anyone talking about Biden and his son, yet Trump said it was a big thing.

But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion.

maybe. like i said if you dig into just about anything these days you'll find something to get upset about.

as for what you and i hear in the news, that doesn't mean that's what our politicians are discussing on these events. now, is this enough to go IMPEACH OVER? it wouldn't seem so. trump does a lot of crap that he's used to doing NOT president and at his age that's hard to just swap gears and keep going. that said, i can see your point about this being more personal.

but if we make those assumptions then the assumption that biden got his son off is also "in play" as something neither should have been involved in from a sheer conflict of interest perspective.

flush it all out and lets dust off the constitution and start over.

For sure not enough to even talk about impeachment. But I do think a wise campaign could make hay out of it in the coming campaign.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

1. Hillary brought up the Biden scandal in 2016 to ensure Joe did not enter the race. It was big at the time, and until now leftist media had been able to bury it / make it go away...until the f*ed up and decide to resurrect it to attack Trump...and did not see how this was going to blow up in their faces.

2. Of course you are desperately reading into it, franticly searching for things that don't add up. The only thing that has to add up is that another Leftist False Accusation of some quid-pro-quo did NOT exist, and the President did NOT engage in Extortion, as Joe confessed to on video.

Yet another 'We've got him now' moment goes down in flames, leaving Dems and snowflakes devastated again.

1. Link please.

2. I did not read into anything. He used his personal lawyer, that by default makes it a personal issue.

you making fun of the "we got him now" people is funny as hell since you start about 25 "we got them now" threads as week and not a one has ever come true.

 

[TNHarley]

as I said....and they will both spin it to match their narrative no matter what the actual words are

How does one spin a word-for-word transcript that shows no quid-pro-quo occurred, as the Democrats so desperately claim, based off of a whistle blower's 2nd-hand account?

give 'em time. if one thing i've learned about our political system these days is never underestimate their ability to outstupid themselves.

So, I assume you read them. Do you see anything in it that is "odd" at all? or anything that would give you pause to stop and think about?

There were a couple.

First, at the time of the call I do not recall anyone talking about Biden and his son, yet Trump said it was a big thing.

But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion.

I think the 2nd one is a fair assessment. However, trump sends rudi all over the planet. That seems normal.

 

[Blaine Sweeter]

as I said....and they will both spin it to match their narrative no matter what the actual words are

How does one spin a word-for-word transcript that shows no quid-pro-quo occurred, as the Democrats so desperately claim, based off of a whistle blower's 2nd-hand account?

give 'em time. if one thing i've learned about our political system these days is never underestimate their ability to outstupid themselves.

So, I assume you read them. Do you see anything in it that is "odd" at all? or anything that would give you pause to stop and think about?

There were a couple.

First, at the time of the call I do not recall anyone talking about Biden and his son, yet Trump said it was a big thing.

But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion.

"But the bigger issue for me is that he told the Ukraine President to call his personal attorney, a man who has no role in the US government. That makes it a personal favor, and not one being done for the government, in my opinion."

Exactamundo. POTUS is supposed to go through the State Dept when dispatching representation to foreign govts. Not personal attorneys.

Asking someone from the State Dept to do his dirty work would make Trump vulnerable so he had to send one of his personal sycophants.

Trump thinks the United States is just another one of his properties, like Doral or Bedminster.
And the way he's spending money, like one of his failed casinos.

 

[easyt65]

1. Link please.

2. I did not read into anything. He used his personal lawyer, that by default makes it a personal issue.

you making fun of the "we got him now" people is funny as hell since you start about 25 "we got them now" threads as week and not a one has ever come true.

1. I have posted it 5 separate times in at least 4 different threads. Educate yourself - I don't 'hand feed'.

2. Thank you for that emotional response after it was pointed out yet another Dem / Snowflake false narrative was just destroyed, leaving snowflakes empty-handed yet again....

Snowflakes unite - altogether now.....SCREAM....SCREAM AT THE SKY!

 

[iceberg]

1. Link please.

2. I did not read into anything. He used his personal lawyer, that by default makes it a personal issue.

you making fun of the "we got him now" people is funny as hell since you start about 25 "we got them now" threads as week and not a one has ever come true.

1. I have posted it 5 separate times in at least 4 different threads. Educate yourself - I don't 'hand feed'.

2. Thank you for that emotional response after it was pointed out yet another Dem / Snowflake false narrative was just destroyed, leaving snowflakes empty-handed yet again....

Snowflakes unite - altogether now.....SCREAM....SCREAM AT THE SKY!

then what would you call posting it 5 times if not hand feeding?

 

[easyt65]

1. Link please.

2. I did not read into anything. He used his personal lawyer, that by default makes it a personal issue.

you making fun of the "we got him now" people is funny as hell since you start about 25 "we got them now" threads as week and not a one has ever come true.

1. I have posted it 5 separate times in at least 4 different threads. Educate yourself - I don't 'hand feed'.

2. Thank you for that emotional response after it was pointed out yet another Dem / Snowflake false narrative was just destroyed, leaving snowflakes empty-handed yet again....

Snowflakes unite - altogether now.....SCREAM....SCREAM AT THE SKY!

then what would you call posting it 5 times if not hand feeding?

 

[easyt65]

then what would you call posting it 5 times if not hand feeding?

Posting it in enough places for all snowflakes to see it at least ONCE....

 

[iceberg]

then what would you call posting it 5 times if not hand feeding?

Posting it in enough places for all snowflakes to see it at least ONCE....

well you're usually on ignore for a lot of people cause all you do it WE GOT HIM NOW shit 24x7.

maybe it's time to slide you over there again and take a break from the bullshit.