Am I mistaken or is the hearsay that the democrats are using to connect the dots from skull sessions and then applied to the phone conversation?

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

You can decide what is credible for yourself.  Each of our 100 senators should do the same.  Sometimes hearsay is credible. The federal rules of evidence allow for one person to testify about what another person said in some circumstances.

Each of the witnesses said they were not aware of potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden, yes, but this could be because Joe Biden nothing wrong. You take it as given that he did something wrong, but that is begging the question. You are correct that, if there was actually reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden had acted in a corrupt manner, a lot of what Rudy Giuliani and Trump have done doesn't look corrupt anymore. However, there's no reasonable suspicion of this. The timeline of how that prosecutor got fired and why does not point to it having anything to do with Hunter.

Next you lay out that the president has prerogatives to withhold funds and talk with foreign leaders as he pleases - this is correct. These things are within his powers. However, the president should never use any of his powers with corrupt intent, that is the abuse of power.

The Constitution lays out that some of the president's powers evaporate when an impeachment trial starts.  And then those powers come back if the impeachment trial ends without a conviction. Is the so-called executive privilege immunity one of these powers? I suppose that's for the supreme Court to decide.

You might be correct that Congress is currently abusing its powers of investigation and of impeachment. But the president cannot remove Congress. Congress can remove the president. Only the voters can cure Congress abusing its power this way.

Anyhow if your complaint about the Democrats' impeachment report is that it relies on what you call hearsay, you should want to remedy that by getting testimony under oath from the main players, people like Mulvaney and Bolton.

After all, if Trump really did not have any corrupt intent, the testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton should show that, right?
When a prosecutor hears about a crime, but the person they heard from cannot give testimony about it that would be admissible in court, that prosecutor will always subpoena people who can give testimony that is admissible in court.

The basis of all American Law is that the prosecution has to prove the case and the Accused does not have to participate. No matter how much you say that they should testify the simple and most basic fundamental of our law says that they don't have to and that you have to prove your case even if they do not. Since they have not, and you have not proven your case, then the vote to impeach is seen, rightly so, as a mere political tactic by the Democratic Party. You can kvetch all you want, torture the words and laws all you want, pout and cry all you want, even go as far as to pretend that you are correct all you want, but the facts are not on your side and the Senate, and by extension the American People, knows it and will hold you accountable next November.

The Accused in a criminal trial does have to testify if the prosecutor calls him.  But he can assert his 5th amendment privilege, for specific questions, if he believes that answering truthfully would incriminate himself.
The Accused is Trump.  
Not Bolton.
Not Mulvaney.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

"The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case".

A Trump defender who says "Sondland didn't hear that from the President's mouth" or "yeah, they heard Bolton say 'drug deal' but they weren't sure why he said it" is telling us that hearing from Bolton and Mulvaney is essential to the justice of the case. Executive privilege does not apply.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The basis of all American Law is that the prosecution has to prove the case and the Accused does not have to participate. No matter how much you say that they should testify the simple and most basic fundamental of our law says that they don't have to and that you have to prove your case even if they do not. Since they have not, and you have not proven your case, then the vote to impeach is seen, rightly so, as a mere political tactic by the Democratic Party. You can kvetch all you want, torture the words and laws all you want, pout and cry all you want, even go as far as to pretend that you are correct all you want, but the facts are not on your side and the Senate, and by extension the American People, knows it and will hold you accountable next November.

The Accused in a criminal trial does have to testify if the prosecutor calls him.  But he can assert his 5th amendment privilege, for specific questions, if he believes that answering truthfully would incriminate himself.
The Accused is Trump.  
Not Bolton.
Not Mulvaney.

"Executive Privilege" is more than just a cool band name.

---

"The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case".

A Trump defender who says "Sondland didn't hear that from the President's mouth" or "yeah, they heard Bolton say 'drug deal' but they weren't sure why he said it" is telling us that hearing from Bolton and Mulvaney is essential to the justice of the case. Executive privilege does not apply.

So
In your colored, biased, prejudiced, partial, and partisan opinion only. In other words, it does to normal people but not to TDS sufferers like yourself. So yeah, enjoy your months running that up the Supremes who will just tell you to get bent.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Just think about how ignorant this is.  Calling something "political" doesnt magically make third hand hearsay or speculation any more credible to determining TRUTH.  

This whole thing is about establishing that the president a.) Acted with corrupt intent b.) Did so in a manner that could seriously compromise the national interest.  Any sane person would take the admission by ALL WITNESSES that they were not aware of potential charges or wrongdoing by joe biden as disqualifying of whatever concerns they may have had about corrupt intent.  Case closed go home.

Moreover, impeachment was designed to be the last recourse for a rogue president acting outside the bounds of checks and balances. That's not the case here.  

They accuse him of withholding funds improperly.  The budget control act sets out that the executive does have limited discretion on the release of funds and sets out a timeframe to release said funds before his administration would have to show cause.  

He's accused of having an improper conversation with a foreign leader.  The transcript was preserved, declassified and released.  

He is accused of obstructing Congress.  SCOTUS has held that the close advisors to the chief executive have virtually infinite immunity from compulsion to testify before the legislature under executive privilege and separation of powers.  

The idea that we would jump to impeachment for clearly lawful acts is a childish abuse of power to distract from the left's weakening hand in 2020.  Just shrowding it in the term political is akin to saying "we plan to remove you from office and disenfranchise your voters because you killed your wife.  We won't allow her to testify because this is just a political not criminal matter."  

Also, it has been held that our constitutional rights do and should extend to congressional proceedings.  The idea that "congress shall make no law" means unless they want to publicly smear you and destroy their political futures is childish on its face.

You can decide what is credible for yourself.  Each of our 100 senators should do the same.  Sometimes hearsay is credible. The federal rules of evidence allow for one person to testify about what another person said in some circumstances.

Well let's just let innuendo and gossip into the official public record to smear our opponent and trump up charges.  Nevermind our responsibility to pursue truth overall or uphold the traditions of common law since the founding of the country.  #ORANGEMANBAD

Each of the witnesses said they were not aware of potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden, yes, but this could be because Joe Biden nothing wrong. You take it as given that he did something wrong, but that is begging the question. You are correct that, if there was actually reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden had acted in a corrupt manner, a lot of what Rudy Giuliani and Trump have done doesn't look corrupt anymore. However, there's no reasonable suspicion of this. The timeline of how that prosecutor got fired and why does not point to it having anything to do with Hunter.

There was a time when you could be forgiven for just being ignorant.  But now you're just a $(^) Liar!  on 2/2/16 The case was advanced against Burisma, The home of the owning oligarch was raided, and they were looking to seize his assets.  Representatives from the company were desperately calling the state department dropping Hunter Biden's name.  3 weeks later the guys fired.   You actually sit there with a straight face, and tell the rest of us why third hand hearsay can be seen as credible but then try to ignore clear documentary evidence (We have the court filings) and direct sworn testimony (on tape and in the form of an affidavit under penalty of perjury.)  Do you hate the man that much?

Next you lay out that the president has prerogatives to withhold funds and talk with foreign leaders as he pleases - this is correct. These things are within his powers. However, the president should never use any of his powers with corrupt intent, that is the abuse of power.

You're entire case for corrupt intent evaporates when there is actual probable cause to investigate.  Just the way the payments to Hunter were structured would AUTOMATICALLY trigger a money laundering investigation against any US citizen.  Paul Manafort is sitting in jail as we speak for something similar.  

The Constitution lays out that some of the president's powers evaporate when an impeachment trial starts.  And then those powers come back if the impeachment trial ends without a conviction. Is the so-called executive privilege immunity one of these powers? I suppose that's for the supreme Court to decide.

There is nothing "SO CALLED" about it.  The supreme court has already recognized it and upheld it.  It is incumbent on congress to take a matter before the courts and then have them rule that an inquiry is so important that it pierces this privilege.  Also, I have seen u argue that it doesn't extend to the president's inner circle.  That's categorically untrue.  SCOTUS held specifically that this privilege extends to the presidents close advisers, under separation of powers, that he may have confidential deliberations.  Its very close to attorney client.  To make the case for obstruction, based on the assertion of privilege, it would have to be in defiance of a court order from SCOTUS saying that he had to turn over documents.  The Majority in the house not only knows this, they know that they would have lost if they went to court.  This has never been about removing the president.  IT's about being able to credibly use the I word in campaign ads.  

You might be correct that Congress is currently abusing its powers of investigation and of impeachment. But the president cannot remove Congress. Congress can remove the president. Only the voters can cure Congress abusing its power this way.

Is anyone saying that the president should remove congress?  And don't worry. The voters are going to have a field day with this.  

Anyhow if your complaint about the Democrats' impeachment report is that it relies on what you call hearsay, you should want to remedy that by getting testimony under oath from the main players, people like Mulvaney and Bolton.

You don't destroy executive privilege unless necessary.  In this case, the documentary evidence on record DESTROYS any thought that the president didn't have the requisite predicate to ask for an investigation into the potential obstruction of justice by Joe Biden.  

After all, if Trump really did not have any corrupt intent, the testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton should show that, right?
When a prosecutor hears about a crime, but the person they heard from cannot give testimony about it that would be admissible in court, that prosecutor will always subpoena people who can give testimony that is admissible in court.

The left has succeeded in convincing so many people that this is some sort of human drama.  Is this person going to testify?  IS that person going to testify.  Was the president in a bad mood today.  Did he swear when he told you to leave the room.  Do you think the president tweets too much.  etc.  

There is documentary evidence that the cover story "The investigation was closed" is a lie regarding the firing of shokin.  There is documentary evidence that the payments made to Hunter Biden were potentially laundered.  If anyone else on this board got millions of dollars filtered through 4 countries and shell companies owned by international criminals then you get investigated!

---

You can decide what is credible for yourself.  Each of our 100 senators should do the same.  Sometimes hearsay is credible. The federal rules of evidence allow for one person to testify about what another person said in some circumstances.

Well let's just let innuendo and gossip into the official public record to smear our opponent and trump up charges.  Nevermind our responsibility to pursue truth overall or uphold the traditions of common law since the founding of the country.  #ORANGEMANBAD

Each of the witnesses said they were not aware of potential wrongdoing by Joe Biden, yes, but this could be because Joe Biden nothing wrong. You take it as given that he did something wrong, but that is begging the question. You are correct that, if there was actually reasonable suspicion that Joe Biden had acted in a corrupt manner, a lot of what Rudy Giuliani and Trump have done doesn't look corrupt anymore. However, there's no reasonable suspicion of this. The timeline of how that prosecutor got fired and why does not point to it having anything to do with Hunter.

There was a time when you could be forgiven for just being ignorant.  But now you're just a $(^) Liar!  on 2/2/16 The case was advanced against Burisma, The home of the owning oligarch was raided, and they were looking to seize his assets.  Representatives from the company were desperately calling the state department dropping Hunter Biden's name.  3 weeks later the guys fired.   You actually sit there with a straight face, and tell the rest of us why third hand hearsay can be seen as credible but then try to ignore clear documentary evidence (We have the court filings) and direct sworn testimony (on tape and in the form of an affidavit under penalty of perjury.)  Do you hate the man that much?

Next you lay out that the president has prerogatives to withhold funds and talk with foreign leaders as he pleases - this is correct. These things are within his powers. However, the president should never use any of his powers with corrupt intent, that is the abuse of power.

You're entire case for corrupt intent evaporates when there is actual probable cause to investigate.  Just the way the payments to Hunter were structured would AUTOMATICALLY trigger a money laundering investigation against any US citizen.  Paul Manafort is sitting in jail as we speak for something similar.  

The Constitution lays out that some of the president's powers evaporate when an impeachment trial starts.  And then those powers come back if the impeachment trial ends without a conviction. Is the so-called executive privilege immunity one of these powers? I suppose that's for the supreme Court to decide.

There is nothing "SO CALLED" about it.  The supreme court has already recognized it and upheld it.  It is incumbent on congress to take a matter before the courts and then have them rule that an inquiry is so important that it pierces this privilege.  Also, I have seen u argue that it doesn't extend to the president's inner circle.  That's categorically untrue.  SCOTUS held specifically that this privilege extends to the presidents close advisers, under separation of powers, that he may have confidential deliberations.  Its very close to attorney client.  To make the case for obstruction, based on the assertion of privilege, it would have to be in defiance of a court order from SCOTUS saying that he had to turn over documents.  The Majority in the house not only knows this, they know that they would have lost if they went to court.  This has never been about removing the president.  IT's about being able to credibly use the I word in campaign ads.  

You might be correct that Congress is currently abusing its powers of investigation and of impeachment. But the president cannot remove Congress. Congress can remove the president. Only the voters can cure Congress abusing its power this way.

Is anyone saying that the president should remove congress?  And don't worry. The voters are going to have a field day with this.  

Anyhow if your complaint about the Democrats' impeachment report is that it relies on what you call hearsay, you should want to remedy that by getting testimony under oath from the main players, people like Mulvaney and Bolton.

You don't destroy executive privilege unless necessary.  In this case, the documentary evidence on record DESTROYS any thought that the president didn't have the requisite predicate to ask for an investigation into the potential obstruction of justice by Joe Biden.  

After all, if Trump really did not have any corrupt intent, the testimony from Mulvaney and Bolton should show that, right?
When a prosecutor hears about a crime, but the person they heard from cannot give testimony about it that would be admissible in court, that prosecutor will always subpoena people who can give testimony that is admissible in court.

The left has succeeded in convincing so many people that this is some sort of human drama.  Is this person going to testify?  IS that person going to testify.  Was the president in a bad mood today.  Did he swear when he told you to leave the room.  Do you think the president tweets too much.  etc.  

There is documentary evidence that the cover story "The investigation was closed" is a lie regarding the firing of shokin.  There is documentary evidence that the payments made to Hunter Biden were potentially laundered.  If anyone else on this board got millions of dollars filtered through 4 countries and shell companies owned by international criminals then you get investigated!

My understanding of the "Biden gets a corrupt prosecutor fired" timeline comes from reading professional American media, including Fox News. I would never trust a random dude on a message board enough to let him add elements to that timeline.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

The left has succeeded in convincing so many people that this is some sort of human drama.  Is this person going to testify?  IS that person going to testify.  Was the president in a bad mood today.  Did he swear when he told you to leave the room.  Do you think the president tweets too much.  etc.  

There is documentary evidence that the cover story "The investigation was closed" is a lie regarding the firing of shokin.  There is documentary evidence that the payments made to Hunter Biden were potentially laundered.  If anyone else on this board got millions of dollars filtered through 4 countries and shell companies owned by international criminals then you get investigated!

My understanding of the "Biden gets a corrupt prosecutor fired" timeline comes from reading professional American media, including Fox News. I would never trust a random dude on a message board enough to let him add elements to that timeline.

Which perfectly explains your inability to recognize the failings of your position.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

The left has succeeded in convincing so many people that this is some sort of human drama.  Is this person going to testify?  IS that person going to testify.  Was the president in a bad mood today.  Did he swear when he told you to leave the room.  Do you think the president tweets too much.  etc.  

There is documentary evidence that the cover story "The investigation was closed" is a lie regarding the firing of shokin.  There is documentary evidence that the payments made to Hunter Biden were potentially laundered.  If anyone else on this board got millions of dollars filtered through 4 countries and shell companies owned by international criminals then you get investigated!

My understanding of the "Biden gets a corrupt prosecutor fired" timeline comes from reading professional American media, including Fox News. I would never trust a random dude on a message board enough to let him add elements to that timeline.

Thankfully it wasn't just hearsay.

---

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...02PRP131Jw

---

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...02PRP131Jw

Lindsey Graham and I certainly agree that Mike Pompeo has stuff to add to this story.
However, if he had any information that helped Trump's case, that was fit for public consumption, we would already know about it. Trump would have had him put it out there by now.
And if his information is not fit for public consumption, he might share it with some Senators, but he's not going to share it with us.
It is much more likely that he does have some interesting information, that is fit for public consumption, but is not disclosing it because it makes Trump look bad.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...02PRP131Jw

Lindsey Graham and I certainly agree that Mike Pompeo has stuff to add to this story.
However, if he had any information that helped Trump's case, that was fit for public consumption, we would already know about it. Trump would have had him put it out there by now.
And if his information is not fit for public consumption, he might share it with some Senators, but he's not going to share it with us.
It is much more likely that he does have some interesting information, that is fit for public consumption, but is not disclosing it because it makes Trump look bad.

It's much more likely that the info Pompeo has is directly related to the ongoing investigation into money laundering and corruption that will be revealed when Durham files his laundry list of charges against Democrats and NeverTrumpers for their corrupt and borderline treasonous behavior the last 12 years.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Lindsey Graham and I certainly agree that Mike Pompeo has stuff to add to this story.
However, if he had any information that helped Trump's case, that was fit for public consumption, we would already know about it. Trump would have had him put it out there by now.
And if his information is not fit for public consumption, he might share it with some Senators, but he's not going to share it with us.
It is much more likely that he does have some interesting information, that is fit for public consumption, but is not disclosing it because it makes Trump look bad.

It's much more likely that the info Pompeo has is directly related to the ongoing investigation into money laundering and corruption that will be revealed when Durham files his laundry list of charges against Democrats and NeverTrumpers for their corrupt and borderline treasonous behavior the last 12 years.

Random dudes on message boards putting all their faith in a prosecutor... Being so sure about what the contents of his report will say months before it comes out... Why does this feel familiar?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It's much more likely that the info Pompeo has is directly related to the ongoing investigation into money laundering and corruption that will be revealed when Durham files his laundry list of charges against Democrats and NeverTrumpers for their corrupt and borderline treasonous behavior the last 12 years.

Random dudes on message boards putting all their faith in a prosecutor... Being so sure about what the contents of his report will say months before it comes out... Why does this feel familiar?

Lol, because Barr is royally pissed and Trump isn't going to stop him from cleaning up the place.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w...02PRP131Jw

Lindsey Graham and I certainly agree that Mike Pompeo has stuff to add to this story.
However, if he had any information that helped Trump's case, that was fit for public consumption, we would already know about it. Trump would have had him put it out there by now.
And if his information is not fit for public consumption, he might share it with some Senators, but he's not going to share it with us.
It is much more likely that he does have some interesting information, that is fit for public consumption, but is not disclosing it because it makes Trump look bad.

It is out there!!!  What do u think I've been talking about?  There is documentary evidence that as late as 2/2/16 the owner of the company had assets under seizure at the direction of the PGO.  That completely obliterates the alibi that "the investigation was over."  Its been in news papers, publicly released senate memoranda that u just read etc.  

Again.  This is akin to you plugging your ears not listening to my wife's testimony when ur charging me with HER MURDER!!!

---

Lindsey Graham and I certainly agree that Mike Pompeo has stuff to add to this story.
However, if he had any information that helped Trump's case, that was fit for public consumption, we would already know about it. Trump would have had him put it out there by now.
And if his information is not fit for public consumption, he might share it with some Senators, but he's not going to share it with us.
It is much more likely that he does have some interesting information, that is fit for public consumption, but is not disclosing it because it makes Trump look bad.

It is out there!!!  What do u think I've been talking about?  There is documentary evidence that as late as 2/2/16 the owner of the company had assets under seizure at the direction of the PGO.  That completely obliterates the alibi that "the investigation was over."  Its been in news papers, publicly released senate memoranda that u just read etc.  

Again.  This is akin to you plugging your ears not listening to my wife's testimony when ur charging me with HER MURDER!!!

"The question of whether Shokin’s investigation against Burisma was in fact a serious one is disputed, however. His deputy has said it was not, as have US officials based in Ukraine; and according the New York Times, some US and Ukrainian officials believe the former prosecutor was pantomiming an investigation in effort to solicit a bribe from Zlochevsky.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

It is out there!!!  What do u think I've been talking about?  There is documentary evidence that as late as 2/2/16 the owner of the company had assets under seizure at the direction of the PGO.  That completely obliterates the alibi that "the investigation was over."  Its been in news papers, publicly released senate memoranda that u just read etc.  

Again.  This is akin to you plugging your ears not listening to my wife's testimony when ur charging me with HER MURDER!!!

"The question of whether Shokin’s investigation against Burisma was in fact a serious one is disputed, however. His deputy has said it was not, as have US officials based in Ukraine; and according the New York Times, some US and Ukrainian officials believe the former prosecutor was pantomiming an investigation in effort to solicit a bribe from Zlochevsky.

First there was no investigation.  Now its pantomiming.  Bribe?  Where is the documentary evidence shokin took a bribe?  We have documents of court filings and asset seizure against burisma.  We have the documents of millions of dollars going to archer & biden.  WE have the documents heavily suggesting it was laundered.  We have tape of biden linking aid to the firing.  Where are your documents?

---

My theory about Pelosi holding Articles has to do with RBG. They want to keep Trump in Presidential purgatory so that if/when RBG retires or dies, the Dems can try to hold up a SCOTUS nomination by saying they aren't going to let an "impeached" President appoint a SCOTUS judge. They also get to hang that tag on him until he is acquitted. If she never sends the Articles, then every broadcaster can say "Impeached President Donald Trump" every time they reference him.

---

My theory about Pelosi holding Articles has to do with RBG.  They want to keep Trump in Presidential purgatory so that if/when RBG retires or dies, the Dems can try to hold up a SCOTUS nomination by saying they aren't going to let an "impeached" President appoint a SCOTUS judge.  They also get to hang that tag on him until he is acquitted.  If she never sends the Articles, then every broadcaster can say "Impeached President Donald Trump" every time they reference him.

Cocaine Mitch will eventually just counter with a dismissal of the charges. He doesn't really have to wait for Nancy to hand deliver them to the Senate chamber, he can act on them once a reasonable time passes.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

My theory about Pelosi holding Articles has to do with RBG.  They want to keep Trump in Presidential purgatory so that if/when RBG retires or dies, the Dems can try to hold up a SCOTUS nomination by saying they aren't going to let an "impeached" President appoint a SCOTUS judge.  They also get to hang that tag on him until he is acquitted.  If she never sends the Articles, then every broadcaster can say "Impeached President Donald Trump" every time they reference him.

Claiming someone to be an existential threat to our democracy and a national security risk, then holding the articles of impeachment and going on vacation is not going to sit well with the American public.  My understanding is he hasn't officially been impeached until the articles are sent to the Senate anyway. Nancy is in a no-win situation here and this will all die when the GOP takes back the house in 2020.

As Barry Hussein Obama once said, elections have consequences. Mitch is smarter than Nancy and isn't going to let her or Cryin' Chuck tell him what to do.

---

It is out there!!!  What do u think I've been talking about?  There is documentary evidence that as late as 2/2/16 the owner of the company had assets under seizure at the direction of the PGO.  That completely obliterates the alibi that "the investigation was over."  Its been in news papers, publicly released senate memoranda that u just read etc.  

Again.  This is akin to you plugging your ears not listening to my wife's testimony when ur charging me with HER MURDER!!!

"The question of whether Shokin’s investigation against Burisma was in fact a serious one is disputed, however. His deputy has said it was not, as have US officials based in Ukraine; and according the New York Times, some US and Ukrainian officials believe the former prosecutor was pantomiming an investigation in effort to solicit a bribe from Zlochevsky.

"According to the New York Times"

Now it becomes clear that you are totally parroting lies.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"