It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A tale of two cities... er... realities

page: 2
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 09:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




and when he actually asked Trump, Trump said he did not.

Offhand, do you know the date of that particular conversation?
Just curious.


September 9th.




posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

Thanks.
My birthday. Cool. My sister came over from another island for it.

And well after the phone call which seems to have created enough of a brouhaha to have it shifted to a highly secure system.

Do you happen to know when the aid funding which was appropriated by Congress and approved by the DoD was released? Some of it, anyway.

edit on 11/23/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HalWesten

Thanks.
My birthday. Cool. My sister came over from another island for it.

And well after the phone call which seems to have created enough of a brouhaha to have it shifted to a highly secure system.

Do you happen to know when the aid funding which was appropriated by Congress and approved by the DoD was released? Some of it, anyway.


I know the aid was released on Sept. 11th, aside from that I don't remember at the moment.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten

So, well after the brouhaha and stashing the "transcript" and the various expressions of concern within the White House about the call. And after the Sondland conversation. And stuff.

And after all that, the cash (some of it) was released. Did Sondland say anything about Trump's demeanor during that particular phone call? The one where Trump said he didn't want anything?

edit on 11/23/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Lysergic

originally posted by: smurfy


This page saved...as I often do.


lulz, do tell why, heuehe.


Why not? do tell why? I didn't say it hurts my computer.





posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




and when he actually asked Trump, Trump said he did not.

Offhand, do you know the date of that particular conversation?
Just curious.


I didn't think that anyone should have replied to me in that vein, the entity should already have known that the Sondland call was made to a President who knew he was caught with his er, pants down trying to be preemptive after the fact...there's very few salient persons, never mind a President, who does that kindergarten ploy.
It begs the question, is this President, spending all his time alone in his bedroom, in isolation.
edit on 23-11-2019 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: HalWesten

So, well after the brouhaha and stashing the "transcript" and the various expressions of concern within the White House about the call. And after the Sondland conversation. And stuff.

And after all that, the cash (some of it) was released. Did Sondland say anything about Trump's demeanor during that particular phone call? The one where Trump said he didn't want anything?


What does his demeanor matter? I'm having trouble keeping my eyes open, I'll check in tomorrow.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 10:59 PM
link   
a reply to: HalWesten




What does his demeanor matter?

Demeonor often comes up in trials, it's often important.
Did Trump calmly and rationally respond to Sondland's inquiry or did he seem agitated or frustrated.

On second thought, is Trump ever calm and rational? Never mind.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: HalWesten
That's why it's important to participate, to watch these (and all) hearings as often as possible so you see what the person actually said. Don't take any of the mass-media's word for it. None of them have the best interests of the American people in mind, only their ratings and agendas.



On the contrary, it's all the more reason to tune out.

At what point do we fix the news?



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:29 PM
link   
Us older dudes remember when news was news. We got it from the 11:00 news stations and from our newspapers.
I am not saying that there was never bias in the old news, but we kinda knew where that was. We would pick our favorite over PBS,ABC,CBS and NBC. Differences, but subtle ones between them all.

We would buy our city and local newspapers. For example the Boston area: The Boston Globe, The Herald and the local paper (like Patriot Ledger)

With all three, you got the news the way you liked to read it. You would pick certain papers for certain stories, and check the others for reasonable differences.

Simpler times for sure, but it was just so much healthier.
edit on 24-11-2019 by charlyv because: spelling , where caught



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

That would have been before news became a business that had to cater to shareholders, the moment it became a for profit business the truth got in the way of a good story.
edit on 23-11-2019 by hopenotfeariswhatweneed because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




and when he actually asked Trump, Trump said he did not.

Offhand, do you know the date of that particular conversation?
Just curious.

Offhand, do you know the answer as to how Sondland responded when asked if anyone on the planet had said quid pro quo in regards to funds?

Do you also know the answer he gave when asked how he came to the conclusion of quid pro quo?

Just curious



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Yes. I do.
And I think any rational person would have come to the same conclusion. As the other witnesses did.
edit on 11/23/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Yes. I do.
And I think any rational person would have come to the same conclusion. As the other witnesses did.


Kinda the point of this thread.

You 'presume' to know what is a rational conclusion, and that your presumption is the ONLY conclusion.

Arrogant and quite ignorant, but I expect no less from you lately, so it is what it is, have a good night.



posted on Nov, 23 2019 @ 11:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




You 'presume' to know what is a rational conclusion, and that your presumption is the ONLY conclusion.

I didn't say that. But feel free to assume I did.


have a good night.
See ya.

edit on 11/23/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 12:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage


I didn't say that. But feel free to assume I did.



originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99

Yes. I do.
And I think any rational person would have come to the same conclusion. As the other witnesses did.



I'm sorry Mr Clinton, I didn't realize you had an account here.



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 12:24 AM
link   
I'd rather watch paint dry than to spend another minute watching the Left getting desperate and frantic and grasping at straws over Trump. They were calling for "impeachment" even before his inauguration. ReeeReeeREeEeeeee!
edit on 24-11-2019 by Kromlech because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 12:26 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

Oh, you're back. Is it morning already?

I said any rational person would have come to the same conclusion that Sondland did, given the information he had. I did not say it was the only possible conclusion.

Meeting being withheld until announcement of investigation. Aid being withheld until...what?

We goes to bed now?

edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 12:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Vector99
I said any rational person would have come to the same conclusion that Sondland did, given the information he had. I did not say it was the only possible conclusion.


Oh, so you admit it's possible this whole thing is a farce, and impeaching Trump is purely politically motivated if no evidence surfaces.

(Your easy tee hee)



posted on Nov, 24 2019 @ 12:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Vector99




Oh, so you admit it's possible this whole thing is a farce

No. I didn't say that.

But I have said for quite a while that I don't think an impeachment is a good idea.


(Your easy tee hee)
You're.

We goes to bed now?
edit on 11/24/2019 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join