Trump Impeachment

[Cactus Jack]

To think that there would actually be someone on here, mad indoctrinated Yanks apart, defending Trump and his crooked acolytes.

Oh...wait....it's Fletch.

For context, Stone was found guilty of five counts of lying to Congress, one of witness tampering and one of obstructing a congressional committee proceeding. Among other things, he misled Congress about his communications with Trump campaign officials in 2016, the jury unanimously decided.

Seems open and shut, until Southfront gets going with the usual spam...

Fletch's reality is so badly skewed he has, on this very thread, refused to recognise a crime that he supported the conviction of Tommy Robinson for not so long ago.

[Cannydc]

I'm defending truth and justice

By presuming (not a stance admissible in court) that CT websites (whose dodgy suppositions would never be admissible in court) are beacons of 'truth and justice'.

You desperately hope, more like.

[Cactus Jack]

[Cannydc]

Read a great Tweet yesterday from a female US politician who was watching that calm, dignified diplomat being harangued and criticised by Trump. It basically said; "I am currently envisaging another 100,000 women volunteering to crawl over broken glass to vote Trump out".

[Fletch]

I switched to LBC News today because Ian Payne was covering for our Sheila and frankly I'd rather dip myself in shit rather than listen to that boring bastard

They covered the Maria Yovanovitch examination live and it was pretty compelling as well as disturbing.

It got 'better' in that Trump basically added an article of impeachment in real time.



I wonder how Fletch is going explain away tampering with a witness while the witness is on the stand testifying.

How wow, how did he tamper with the witness CJ?

What was the threat, or offer?

How did he do that to her if she was on the stand? Was he there talking direct or did she have an earpiece connected to Trump?

It's like the last page didn't exist, isn't it...

Here's one you missed ignored CJ.

Well?

[Fletch]

I'm defending truth and justice, not games and claims.

A redacted statement gives evidence of wrong doing?

Read the links on the article.

Stone was also charged with falsely telling Congress he had no emails or texts discussing WikiLeaks; with falsely saying he never asked for any requests to be communicated to Assange; and with falsely saying he never discussed his conversations with his WikiLeaks intermediary with anyone in Trump’s campaign.

To repeat these are the things Roger Stone was found guilty of:

Claiming he hadn’t exchanged emails with Wikileaks with third-parties like Credico and Corsi;
Saying that Corsi was his only intermediary with Wikileaks;
Denying that he asked Credico to be an envoy between himself and Wikileaks founder Julian Assange;
Denying he communicated with Credico regarding Wikileaks altogether;
Denying that he relayed his communications with Credico to Trump campaign officials.

All of these are contained in the indictment, released back in January 2019.

and

In conclusion, guilty or not, the point of the matter is that Roger Stone was deemed guilty by MSM a long time ago, the same way every other individual who was indicted by Robert Mueller was found guilty long before they were sentenced to anything at all. It is becoming more and more apparent that in the modern US, “justice” has little to do with truth or evidence. It, however, has much to do with constructing a narrative, largely, out of thin air and repeating it on MSM until enough people believe it is fact.

By presuming (not a stance admissible in court) that CT websites (whose dodgy suppositions would never be admissible in court) are beacons of 'truth and justice'.

You desperately hope, more like.

I see you still can't get the quotes right so have helped you out.

[Fletch]

Here Are The Payments To Hunter Biden, Leaked From Ukraine





https://creativedestructionmedia.com/wp ... .23-PM.png

Check out those names.

I do believe I've posted about this a few times before...

Shocking yet passes unremarked upon by those supposedly interested in corruption.

[Fletch]

Read a great Tweet yesterday from a female US politician who was watching that calm, dignified diplomat being harangued and criticised by Trump. It basically said; "I am currently envisaging another 100,000 women volunteering to crawl over broken glass to vote Trump out".

So Trump was at the hearing then?

[Cactus Jack]

I switched to LBC News today because Ian Payne was covering for our Sheila and frankly I'd rather dip myself in shit rather than listen to that boring bastard

They covered the Maria Yovanovitch examination live and it was pretty compelling as well as disturbing.

It got 'better' in that Trump basically added an article of impeachment in real time.



I wonder how Fletch is going explain away tampering with a witness while the witness is on the stand testifying.

How wow, how did he tamper with the witness CJ?

What was the threat, or offer?

How did he do that to her if she was on the stand? Was he there talking direct or did she have an earpiece connected to Trump?

It's like the last page didn't exist, isn't it...

Here's one you missed ignored CJ.

Well?

It has been address in the material you obviously haven't read, watch or listened to.

Trump's tweet meets the legal standard for witness intimidation.

[Cannydc]

Read a great Tweet yesterday from a female US politician who was watching that calm, dignified diplomat being harangued and criticised by Trump. It basically said; "I am currently envisaging another 100,000 women volunteering to crawl over broken glass to vote Trump out".

So Trump was at the hearing then?

You must be the only person in the Western world who didn't see the congressman reading out parts of Trump's tweet as it was sent, live, to the lady diplomat it referred to.

Are you suggesting he had to read it in person ?

Come to that, do you think it was in any way accurate, or fitting for him to demean the woman publicly ?

Oh, and if there are several quotes which take up endless space (or 5 already) I shall continue to take out the part I wish to reply to and highlight it in a quote box. If you don't like it, tough.

[Cannydc]

Fletch - re. your previous post which you say was "shocking but unremarked on".

Well, it wasn't shocking at all - I'm sure you would post everything in Russian if you could.

I don't speak Russian.

The rest of the post was a combination of illegible followed by incessant whataboutery.

So, File 13 it was.

[Cactus Jack]

Fletch - re. your previous post which you say was "shocking but unremarked on".

Well, it wasn't shocking at all - I'm sure you would post everything in Russian if you could.

I don't speak Russian.

The rest of the post was a combination of illegible followed by incessant whataboutery.

So, File 13 it was.

[Fletch]

Read a great Tweet yesterday from a female US politician who was watching that calm, dignified diplomat being harangued and criticised by Trump. It basically said; "I am currently envisaging another 100,000 women volunteering to crawl over broken glass to vote Trump out".

So Trump was at the hearing then?

You must be the only person in the Western world who didn't see the congressman reading out parts of Trump's tweet as it was sent, live, to the lady diplomat it referred to.

Are you suggesting he had to read it in person ?

Come to that, do you think it was in any way accurate, or fitting for him to demean the woman publicly ?

Oh, and if there are several quotes which take up endless space (or 5 already) I shall continue to take out the part I wish to reply to and highlight it in a quote box. If you don't like it, tough.

Blimey. Why was the congressman intimidating the witness?

Who was it and why did he think it was germane to the issue being discussed at the time?

[Fletch]

Fletch - re. your previous post which you say was "shocking but unremarked on".

Well, it wasn't shocking at all - I'm sure you would post everything in Russian if you could.

I don't speak Russian.

The rest of the post was a combination of illegible followed by incessant whataboutery.

So, File 13 it was.

It was a copy of the actual evidence, one of many pieces.

I'm sure even your level of understanding can cope with that?

Or you could download it for yourself (it's in English)

[Fletch]

It has been address in the material you obviously haven't read, watch or listened to.

Trump's tweet meets the legal standard for witness intimidation.

But you keep refusing to say what the threat or intimidation was?

Did he threaten to have her arrested? Threaten her family in any way or even threaten to have her Arkancided or something?

What was the actual intimidation CJ?

Spamming MNSBC opinions is not an answer to the question. You claim it's intimidation so why do you believe it is, and what was the nature of it?