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.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe
My claim is that we all know what the transcript of the call is, so, to claim that witnesses who weren’t on the call don’t have any information about the circumstances, the history of the months leading up to the call, etc. are asinine claims in my opinion.
originally posted by: Lagomorphe
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe
My claim is that we all know what the transcript of the call is, so, to claim that witnesses who weren’t on the call don’t have any information about the circumstances, the history of the months leading up to the call, etc. are asinine claims in my opinion.
Just YOUR claim...
NO PROOF...
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Gryphon66
The Ukraine phone call was bait.
Eric ciaramella and Colonel vindman were included on the zelinkyy phone calls and many other staffers who should have been in on its were blocked.
They were baited into leaking to Schiff
What's the Ambassador admitted was that the alleged Aid package that was allegedly being held up was in fact a high-tech missile system arms deal that that would have put Javelin missiles and probably a lot of stuff that would have gone unaccounted for as soon as it arrived in Kiev.
Almost Checkmate good buddy I hope you are enjoying the show
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Gryphon66
Then you obviously must not have read the transcript in any way at all.
The phone call was perfect
originally posted by: St Udio
a reply to: Gryphon66
no it does not change the answers---- But it explains the spying nature of his 'Notes' which were focused on the future 'value' of the info that was jotted down...
A one-track-mind is the obvious assessment of the 'notes'.... 'notes' for cornering Trump in a compromising position---- or 'notes' for the purpose of future attention to find out what where the 'noted item' might lead to some valuable discovery
copious note taking is a 'Tell' on that persons inner thinking,,, they are not innocents, but have nefarious intentions which need to be investigated/exposed
too bad that Trump don't have a cadre of 'whistle-blowers' to snitch on Party members like the old Soviet systems in Russia & China and starting up here in the Blue-States, vote-harvesting, cesspool sanctuary zones run by Blue-State-Deep-State
originally posted by: dashen
a reply to: Gryphon66
The point is you had Ambassador Taylor up there giving testimony trying as hard as he can to sound legitimate with nothing more than hearsay and innuendo.
The extortion bribery and quid pro quo allegations don't fit into the summary of the phone call in any way.
All that was his extra little salt and pepper on the situation when he said it was his clear understanding. When Jim Jordan asked him where he got this clear understanding he could not answer him in any straight way.
What a clown show
Socialist/democrats are a bunch of CRIMINALS, if after this failed deposition democrats in the DNC don't jump ship because of the corruption of Schiff, Pelosi and others in the "democrat party," then those democrats that remain are complicit in the corruption, and should be charged with high crimes to attempt to depose the dully elected POTUS with nothing but LIES.
originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Who are WE?
a reply to: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Lagomorphe
Who are WE?
a reply to: Gryphon66
We the People of the United States.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Lagomorphe
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe
My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.
My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source
No links to obvious proof?
This is ATS...
Deny ignorance
LOL. Right back at you.
I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.
Period.
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Lagomorphe
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe
My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.
My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source
No links to obvious proof?
This is ATS...
Deny ignorance
LOL. Right back at you.
I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.
Period.
You made a conjecture , based on anothers conjecture.
Hardly fact.
Speculation.
Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Some , although denied and refuted , just keep on like the Energizer Bunny , never knowing when to stop.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Gothmog
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: Lagomorphe
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lagomorphe
My claim: The Trump-Zelensky transcript has been in public view for weeks.
My evidence: The White House released the transcript on September 24, 2019. Source
No links to obvious proof?
This is ATS...
Deny ignorance
LOL. Right back at you.
I made a claim, and I established why I made the claim, and there’s zero way that anyone can deny my claim.
Period.
You made a conjecture , based on anothers conjecture.
Hardly fact.
Speculation.
Denying ignorance.
Why ?
Some , although denied and refuted , just keep on like the Energizer Bunny , never knowing when to stop.
Go read what I said and get back to me.
PS What I said was, we all know what was on the phonecall. To continually claim that a witness cannot testify because they weren’t ON THE CALL is dumb, in my opinion.