That’s not what biggestal posted.
Yeah that’s the quote.
Now here’s what you posted.
Not even close to the same thing.
Not surprising though.
1 Like
In April, she was told to come home from the Ukraine because her safety was at risk. I’m assuming that was unsettling for her. Three months later the President says that “she’s going to go through some things.”
If I’m told my safety is at risk and later the President says things are going to be done to me, I’d feel threatened. I’m not sure what the issue is here.
Original exchange is above. You stated he got nearly 100% wrong. The first and second sentences are 100% true. Undeniable. The other sentences are simply opinions expressed.
So, yeah, you got it 100% wrong… take some dedication.
Let me guess, you’re gonna flag this one to have it removed to? I’d really like an explanation here of what’s inappropriate… its not inappropriate to point out how you’re 100% wrong.
This place is ridiculous… can’t rebut, so have the post removed to save face. SMH
1 Like
She has apparently lied about our host Sean Hannity in the secret “audition” testimony that "piece of " Schiff held about Sean having a role in her dismissal & accused him of a smear campaign against her and he is not going to tolerate any slanderous libelous lies about him from anyone and promised to get the best lawyers in the country if he has to.
Way to call Sean, put them all on notice! 
1 Like
That was a different poster I said that to.
No, it wasn’t. Post #19 above. @SottoVoce referenced the quote that you’ve now acknowledged was said. You responded by saying he got it “nearly 100% wrong”, and that it takes some dedication.
Twice after that, I posted to the transcript and pointed out he was correct, you were wrong. Twice you flagged the post as inappropriate and had them removed. Thanks, I guess, for at least letting this one stand…
1 Like
Nothing can come close to demeaning the office more then what Clinton did in the Oval office and on the Oval office desk, hell you can even say under the Oval office desk. 
Dems take the gold on crassness and perversion while serving as President.
1 Like
If you honestly think getting some nooky in the Oval Office is worse than selling your own country out, then Im not even sure what to say… that’s just indefensible.
2 Likes
I’d say its more indefensible to believe President Trump is selling out the country, it’s a ridiculous accusation with no substance behind it whatsoever only blind belief in what lying Dems like “piece of” Schiff & the MSM have been spouting for 3 years now.
Trump can’t even operate a nonprofit. He has admited that he can’t be trusted to be a responsible fiduciary manager. Why is that a hard stretch?
1 Like
Well, who can argue against that?
Oh wait…
Michael Cohen. Indicted. Currently in prison.
George Papadopoulos. Indicted. Served and released.
Paul Manafort. Indicted. Currently in prison.
Rick Gates. Pleaded guilty. Awaiting sentencing.
Michael Flynn. Pleaded guilty. Awaiting sentencing.
Roger Stone. Indicted today. Awaiting sentencing.
And of course, Guliani is teed up and will likely be going down shortly.
Not sure if you’re currently listening to the news or not, but David Holmes, the guy that overheard the conversation between Sonland & Trump at the restaurant in Kiev, made some pretty damning statements. It’s really going to back Sondland in a corner now. Sondland already had to “correct” his testimony once. In case you’re unaware (assume you only watch Fox), Sondland originally said there was no QPQ. After he saw some of the other’s testimony that contradicted his own, he revised his testimony to say a QPQ did, in fact, occur. Now that Holmes has come out with his testimony, that he claims can be verified by two other witnesses, do you think Sondland will now deny it? That would mean he’s have to double-back on his correction…
I hope you’re here on Wednesday. I’ll check in on ya 
lol
ETA: Like to ask you something. Sonland will be testifying on Wednesday. He’s the one with direct contact with Trump. He’s the one that was on the line that Trump supposedly asked about if the Biden investigations were going to occur or not. He’s the one who can confirm, or deny, (having first-hand knowledge) if this ever occurred. He’s also a Trump appointee, and not a career civil servant. I only say this, because you can’t make claims of Deep State or “Never Trumper!” if you don’t like his testimony.
If he comes out and confirms that Trump requested the investigation, will you accept it? Or will you dismiss it for any number of other reasons?
3 Likes
So let’s hear from guilani and mulveay and Bolton and…
Well you catch my drift.
If you got lemons make lemonade.
Allan
If the president posted some things are going to happen to biggestal99
I’d be ■■■■■■■■ in my pants.
Yes, the president is that powerful.
Allan
Sondlands testimony will be good n Wednesday. To date, the Repubs defense have been 1) it’s hearsay, there’s no first-hand knowledge, 2) they’re part of the Deep State, or 3) they were Never Trumpers. While that’s an absurd defense considering the career civil servants being referenced, no one can make those claims against Sondland. He had direct contact, particularly on the topic at hand, and he’s a Trump appointee. Holmes’ testimony this afternoon is really going to put him in a tight spot.
Is the a director of the Foreign Service an appointee or a civil servant?
Donald withheld aid to enlist a foreign power’s help in taking down a political opponent.
Many, many people have said.
You keep saying that.
That’s not what he said.
He said “She’s gonna to go through some things…”. That’s the quote from the transcript that the WH released. Those are his words. You already acknowledge as much above.
So, now I’m waiting… How is the quote I provided above different from @biggestal99 stating “… some things are going to happen…”?
If they don’t say what libs and the media want them to say, libs will just say they were lying.
I wouldn’t give credibility to this witch hunt if I were them.
1 Like
Of course “many” have said it.
It’s all opponents’ opinions.
Line em up and fabricate a case!!
