This right here says it all.  You are advocating this entire circus on conjecture and zero evidence all because you despise the man in question.  

As for your statement that the public opinion shifting away from the democrats what polls are you watching?  A democrat is even switching party affiliation over this farce.

I am advocating that the people who were in the room when it happened testify under oath. I don't see why that should turn into a circus. If their testimony explains how they were doing this the right way for the right reasons, then there is no need for anything else. If their testimony instead shows that the impressions of these lower diplomats were correct, then the president was abusing his power and needs to be removed immediately.

You can't have this both ways. if you think that all these people who have already testified under oath have false impressions, you should want the people who know better to testify saying so. If you think that their impressions were accurate, but that this is somehow not abusive, you should want them to testify explaining why it was not abusive.  if you really think there is a deep state, this kind of open-ended testimony seems like a pretty good chance to expose it, wouldn't you think?

You can't fault to the House prosecutors for trying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.

We have the actual transcript of the call.  No here say, no speculation, no conjecture and especially no feelings!

---

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.
 

Let's stop clowning ourselves.  The truth is out, and the President was not proven to have done a single thing impeachable.  Not unexpected, given the facts we had both before and after the shampeachment effort.

It's over.  The voters will not forget, and the left keeps digging it's own political grave deeper and deeper by the minute.

Intellectually honest folks would self reflect and self improve at this stage.  A lot of good, smart people have been fooled.  All that anger is misdirected at the President they hate, but would be better served directed at the politicians and media who took them for fools.

You first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

I am advocating that the people who were in the room when it happened testify under oath. I don't see why that should turn into a circus. If their testimony explains how they were doing this the right way for the right reasons, then there is no need for anything else. If their testimony instead shows that the impressions of these lower diplomats were correct, then the president was abusing his power and needs to be removed immediately.

You can't have this both ways. if you think that all these people who have already testified under oath have false impressions, you should want the people who know better to testify saying so. If you think that their impressions were accurate, but that this is somehow not abusive, you should want them to testify explaining why it was not abusive.  if you really think there is a deep state, this kind of open-ended testimony seems like a pretty good chance to expose it, wouldn't you think?

You can't fault to the House prosecutors for trying to move on flimsy evidence, and then prevent them from accessing better evidence. That's unfair and you know it.

We have the actual transcript of the call.  No here say, no speculation, no conjecture and especially no feelings!

1) It's not a transcript. 
2) he didn't want us to have it.
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations.
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself.

---

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

The delusion is simply amazing.

Complete disconnect from reality.

This is not a joke. You truly need help.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Let's stop clowning ourselves.  The truth is out, and the President was not proven to have done a single thing impeachable.  Not unexpected, given the facts we had both before and after the shampeachment effort.

It's over.  The voters will not forget, and the left keeps digging it's own political grave deeper and deeper by the minute.

Intellectually honest folks would self reflect and self improve at this stage.  A lot of good, smart people have been fooled.  All that anger is misdirected at the President they hate, but would be better served directed at the politicians and media who took them for fools.

You first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

We have the actual transcript of the call.  No here say, no speculation, no conjecture and especially no feelings!

1) It's not a transcript. Yes it is, a consolidation of notes taken by six (6) NSA workers who agree on the contents and tenor and also who say nothing untoward occurred.
2) he didn't want us to have it. Who can blame him when everyone in the media and fools like you twist every word into an attempt at overthrow?
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine. So? Foreign Policy is his purview.
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why. Who the Hell does after the bull [BLEEP] the FBI pulled?
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations. A brief mention is not an obsession except in your tiny little brain
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine. He most certainly discussed cleaning up corruption in that country with its new leadership.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself. So much [BLEEP] there aren't enough rodeo clowns on Earth to shovel it.

---

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

Let's stop clowning ourselves.  The truth is out, and the President was not proven to have done a single thing impeachable.  Not unexpected, given the facts we had both before and after the shampeachment effort.

It's over.  The voters will not forget, and the left keeps digging it's own political grave deeper and deeper by the minute.

Intellectually honest folks would self reflect and self improve at this stage.  A lot of good, smart people have been fooled.  All that anger is misdirected at the President they hate, but would be better served directed at the politicians and media who took them for fools.

You first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

We have the actual transcript of the call.  No here say, no speculation, no conjecture and especially no feelings!

1) It's not a transcript. 
2) he didn't want us to have it.
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations.
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself.

Ignorance.  Sheer unadulterated ignorance.  Vindman destroyed points one and two.  Every witness agreed that the ukrainians only found out about the aid after press reports.  

Ignorance

---

You first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

1) It's not a transcript. 
2) he didn't want us to have it.
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations.
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself.

Ignorance.  Sheer unadulterated ignorance.  Vindman destroyed points one and two.  Every witness agreed that the ukrainians only found out about the aid after press reports.  

Ignorance

The witnesses said they did not know when Ukraine found out. Ukrainian started admitting to noticing the aid was missing at a certain time but none of the witnesses could rule out that they hadn't found out earlier. There's evidence that they did find out earlier. 
Also, the aid was released the day after the whistleblower report was submitted. But that's just a coincidence in your little mind, I'm sure.

---

The delusion is simply amazing.

Complete disconnect from reality.

This is not a joke.  You truly need help.

You need to step outside of your bubble.

---

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

You first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

1) It's not a transcript. Yes it is, a consolidation of notes taken by six (6) NSA workers who agree on the contents and tenor and also who say nothing untoward occurred.
2) he didn't want us to have it. Who can blame him when everyone in the media and fools like you twist every word into an attempt at overthrow?
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine. So? Foreign Policy is his purview.
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why. Who the Hell does after the bull [BLEEP] the FBI pulled?
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations. A brief mention is not an obsession except in your tiny little brain
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine. He most certainly discussed cleaning up corruption in that country with its new leadership.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself. So much [BLEEP] there aren't enough rodeo clowns on Earth to shovel it.

1) You're jumbling your perspectives and narratives.
It's not the NSA's job to determine if anything untoward is occurring. If they think something untoward is occurring they have a whistleblower process, but it's not up to them to decide if something is actually a problem or not.

2) as Jim Carrey said loudly in the movie liar liar, "then stop breaking the law!"

3) agreed, but Congress has the power to impeach in case he mismanages this, or abuses it. My point here is that there's more to read than just this one "transcript". You agree but there is more to read.

4) he appointed his own FBI chief. He has his own people at other levels. Yet the people who've looked into it, Trump's people and people who came in earlier, are still saying Russia is the one who hacked the DNC server. Only unappointed clown without regular access to info like Giuliani believe that crap. And Trump. But that's more because Trump doesn't read.

5) your perspective shifts again. After admitting that there's more to look at than just one call, now you're narrowing down to just the one call again. Sure, if the only time Trump's people ever mentioned Biden was in this one call, that might not be worth noticing. But we have testimony now that shows it was a pattern. Trump's people talked about biden a lot whenever they were talking to Ukraine.

6) take the transcript, and cross out all references to Joe Biden or crowd strike? I don't see any remaining references to any other corrupt incident, or corruption in general.  Do you?

---

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

1) You're jumbling your perspectives and narratives.
It's not the NSA's job to determine if anything untoward is occurring. If they think something untoward is occurring they have a whistleblower process, but it's not up to them to decide if something is actually a problem or not.

2) as Jim Carrey said loudly in the movie liar liar, "then stop breaking the law!"

3) agreed, but Congress has the power to impeach in case he mismanages this, or abuses it. My point here is that there's more to read than just this one "transcript". You agree but there is more to read.

4) he appointed his own FBI chief. He has his own people at other levels. Yet the people who've looked into it, Trump's people and people who came in earlier, are still saying Russia is the one who hacked the DNC server. Only unappointed clown without regular access to info like Giuliani believe that crap.  And Trump.  But that's more because Trump doesn't read.

5) your perspective shifts again. After admitting that there's more to look at than just one call, now you're narrowing down to just the one call again. Sure, if the only time Trump's people ever mentioned Biden was in this one call, that might not be worth noticing. But we have testimony now that shows it was a pattern. Trump's people talked about biden a lot whenever they were talking to Ukraine.

6) take the transcript, and cross out all references to Joe Biden or crowd strike? I don't see any remaining references to any other corrupt incident, or corruption in general.  Do you?

4) The investigation was under Obama's FBI, not Trump's, and most of the FBI are entrenched government workers who will not be replaced from aministration to administration. The IG report showed that the FBI was and still is heavily Democrat. In any case, none of the US intelligence agencies were allowed access to the DNC server, so "Russia" is only based on what Crowdstrike (specifically chosen by the DNC) said.

---

                                                                          

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

1) You're jumbling your perspectives and narratives.
It's not the NSA's job to determine if anything untoward is occurring. If they think something untoward is occurring they have a whistleblower process, but it's not up to them to decide if something is actually a problem or not.

2) as Jim Carrey said loudly in the movie liar liar, "then stop breaking the law!"

3) agreed, but Congress has the power to impeach in case he mismanages this, or abuses it. My point here is that there's more to read than just this one "transcript". You agree but there is more to read.

4) he appointed his own FBI chief. He has his own people at other levels. Yet the people who've looked into it, Trump's people and people who came in earlier, are still saying Russia is the one who hacked the DNC server. Only unappointed clown without regular access to info like Giuliani believe that crap.  And Trump.  But that's more because Trump doesn't read.

5) your perspective shifts again. After admitting that there's more to look at than just one call, now you're narrowing down to just the one call again. Sure, if the only time Trump's people ever mentioned Biden was in this one call, that might not be worth noticing. But we have testimony now that shows it was a pattern. Trump's people talked about biden a lot whenever they were talking to Ukraine.

6) take the transcript, and cross out all references to Joe Biden or crowd strike? I don't see any remaining references to any other corrupt incident, or corruption in general.  Do you?

4) The investigation was under Obama's FBI, not Trump's, and most of the FBI are entrenched government workers who will not be replaced from aministration to administration. The IG report showed that the FBI was and still is heavily Democrat. In any case, none of the US intelligence agencies were allowed access to the DNC server, so "Russia" is only based on what Crowdstrike (specifically chosen by the DNC) said.

I could believe that some of them are in the bag for whatever hillary Clinton wants the narrative to be.
But I'm sorry, I cannot believe that they all are.
Especially not after all of the changes that have taken place at the top.
In so many other situations we know that these guys just rely on facts. You can't tell me that every single one of them is ignoring facts just because Hillary Clinton, who lost, wants them to.
Who else should have investigated the server? Who else keeps track of traffic like that if not crowd strike?

---

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

Ignorance.  Sheer unadulterated ignorance.  Vindman destroyed points one and two.  Every witness agreed that the ukrainians only found out about the aid after press reports.  

Ignorance

The witnesses said they did not know when Ukraine found out. Ukrainian started admitting to noticing the aid was missing at a certain time but none of the witnesses could rule out that they hadn't found out earlier. There's evidence that they did find out earlier. 
Also, the aid was released the day after the whistleblower report was submitted. But that's just a coincidence in your little mind, I'm sure.

---

The delusion is simply amazing.

Complete disconnect from reality.

This is not a joke.  You truly need help.

You need to step outside of your bubble.

This is the crux of your issue, never looking in the mirror and constantly calling the kettle black.  You can't run/hide from the truth forever.  Every. Single. Fact. in these cases have blown your arguments up in your very face.  Yet you're still in denial.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

US has a right to know...

https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/stat...4437021701

---

But wait, there's more...

https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/stat...8267020288

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

Simply indefensible... you try to cheat an investigation, and still can't even manufacture any evidence. Because there's none there.

https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/1207050993617264643

---

https://twitter.com/jsolomonReports/stat...9558601734

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

The karmic justice here is, support for it has dropped since the moment it started, lol!
https://twitter.com/RealMattCouch/status...1570993152

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

4) The investigation was under Obama's FBI, not Trump's, and most of the FBI are entrenched government workers who will not be replaced from aministration to administration. The IG report showed that the FBI was and still is heavily Democrat. In any case, none of the US intelligence agencies were allowed access to the DNC server, so "Russia" is only based on what Crowdstrike (specifically chosen by the DNC) said.

I could believe that some of them are in the bag for whatever hillary Clinton wants the narrative to be.
But I'm sorry, I cannot believe that they all are.
Especially not after all of the changes that have taken place at the top.
In so many other situations we know that these guys just rely on facts. You can't tell me that every single one of them is ignoring facts just because Hillary Clinton, who lost, wants them to.
Who else should have investigated the server? Who else keeps track of traffic like that if not crowd strike?

To answer your question in red, the FBI, and/or the NSA.

The "changes ... at the top" have almost zero effect below the 2nd level from the top. This is government, nobody except upper tier political types will get fired unless cause can be proven, and rarely even if that is the case. The VA is proof of that.

Of course not EVERYONE in the FBI were for Hillary and/or the Democrat Party, but enough of a super-majority to overcome any criticism by the ones who weren't. Look at the Horowitz report. Look at the massive majority of Hillary voters in DC and the DC suburbs. If you think that isn't a problem then you are in severe TDS denial land.

Whether or not the FBI was in the bag, the fact is that the FBI did not actually investigate the hacking of the DNC server. It doesn't matter who was in the FBI at the time, although maybe a less partisan FBI might have been more credulous about trusting the DNC's chosen cover-up investigation company. The DNC had a strong motive for blaming an outsider rather than admitting that the E-mails were handed to Assange by an insider who copied them onto a memory stick. Assange, who does know, claims it wasn't Russia, but he's no more valid a source than Crowdstrike (although I don't see how he gained by saying that).

The bottom line is: WE DON'T KNOW. The US intelligence agencies don't know for sure either, and are just repeating the story given by Crowdstrike.

---

                                                                          

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

1) You're jumbling your perspectives and narratives.
It's not the NSA's job to determine if anything untoward is occurring. If they think something untoward is occurring they have a whistleblower process, but it's not up to them to decide if something is actually a problem or not.

2) as Jim Carrey said loudly in the movie liar liar, "then stop breaking the law!"

3) agreed, but Congress has the power to impeach in case he mismanages this, or abuses it. My point here is that there's more to read than just this one "transcript". You agree but there is more to read.

4) he appointed his own FBI chief. He has his own people at other levels. Yet the people who've looked into it, Trump's people and people who came in earlier, are still saying Russia is the one who hacked the DNC server. Only unappointed clown without regular access to info like Giuliani believe that crap.  And Trump.  But that's more because Trump doesn't read.

5) your perspective shifts again. After admitting that there's more to look at than just one call, now you're narrowing down to just the one call again. Sure, if the only time Trump's people ever mentioned Biden was in this one call, that might not be worth noticing. But we have testimony now that shows it was a pattern. Trump's people talked about biden a lot whenever they were talking to Ukraine.

6) take the transcript, and cross out all references to Joe Biden or crowd strike? I don't see any remaining references to any other corrupt incident, or corruption in general.  Do you?

My Gosh...  

1.) No they don't.  There is no such thing as a whistleblower against the chief executive.  WHY?  Because he has access to a constellation of information and data that no one else in the government has.  Every witness in the impeachment inquiry that said something "untoward" was happening, had to admit that they had ZERO understanding of the potential allegations against Joe Biden, any supporting evidence etc. so by their own admission they are completely and totally unqualified to even comment on some form of corrupt intent.  

2.) He released the Transcript, another transcript, and a letter between he and the Incoming president of Ukraine debunking every allegation that the Dems have made.  We have the actual transcripts and documentary evidence, we have the denials by the whitehouse, we have the unequivocal denials by every level of the Ukrainian Government, we have the direct evidence of wrongdoing and deception by the Biden Team and the Democrats but wait....  Jim Taylor, (Did work for an NGO partnered with Burisma) Heard something at the water cooler....  George Kent (Set up the NACB that helped to set up Paul Manafort and whose director was conviceted of interfering in our elections) has concerns...  Yovanavitch (admitted to allowing Ukrainian interference in our elections and denied Visas to witnesses against Joe Biden) cried on TV.  Let's forget what we can prove #ORANGEMANBAD 

3.) No, Congress has the power to impeach if he Betrays the country.  #CONTEXTUALREADING #LEGISLATIVESUPREMACY #NOTHINGBURGER

4.) How the #$@^#$^#%$*%^**&%&(^^&  Would they know.  The FBI never examined the server!!!!  If the server is in Ukraine why is it in Ukraine and why didn't domestic authorities examine it?  My Gosh.  Pay attention!!!

5.) Really?  That's not what I heard.  Dates and times.  Who approached the Ukrainians?  When?  What was the direct threat made.  And who SPECIFICALLY ASKED for FABRICATION of evidence or MENTIONED the 2020 campaign.  

6.) #CHILDISH  Yeh you guys wasted 7 billion dollars that One person was responsible for overseeing, tried to ruin me, my reputation, sabotage my campaign, had my campaign manager resign and put in jail for the rest of his life, allowed my NSA director to be bankrupt, disgraced, may go to jail, Roger stone just got convicted, etc. etc. etc. but your right mike.  I don't understand why, when talking to the country that originated the Russia Hoax, any of that would be on the President's mind.  #IDIOCY #CANTDEFENDTHEBIDENS #BURISMA #HUNTER #DEVONARCHER

---

Let's stop clowning ourselves.  The truth is out, and the President was not proven to have done a single thing impeachable.  Not unexpected, given the facts we had both before and after the shampeachment effort.

It's over.  The voters will not forget, and the left keeps digging it's own political grave deeper and deeper by the minute.

Intellectually honest folks would self reflect and self improve at this stage.  A lot of good, smart people have been fooled.  All that anger is misdirected at the President they hate, but would be better served directed at the politicians and media who took them for fools.

You first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

We have the actual transcript of the call.  No here say, no speculation, no conjecture and especially no feelings!

1) It's not a transcript. 
2) he didn't want us to have it.
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations.
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself.

As I read your responses I envision a 1970's ransom note.  You cut a letter out of this magazine, another off this page here, use two more from the TV guide ect.  Sure is conveys a message but nothing fits.

---

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 first. You might as well be wearing a rubber nose from what I see.

---

1) It's not a transcript. 
2) he didn't want us to have it.
3) what Trump said on the call that day is not the only things that were said by his people to the leadership of Ukraine
4) it shows that Trump doesn't believe his own intelligence agencies about who hacked the DNC and why
5) it shows a particular obsession with Joe Biden applied to foreign relations.
6) it does not show any generalized concern for corruption in Ukraine.

So yeah I looked at it.
I see probable cause to start an investigation just in that document by itself.

As I read your responses I envision a 1970's ransom note.  You cut a letter out of this magazine, another off this page here, use two more from the TV guide ect.  Sure is conveys a message but nothing fits.

There's a guy here making three posts in a row, using dudes no one else has ever heard of on Twitter as sources for increasingly bizarre claims. Fox News won't even touch these claims. I try to step outside my bubble by reading CNN, Fox News, the BBC, so I know. But I'm the crazy one. OK.

---

1) You're jumbling your perspectives and narratives.
It's not the NSA's job to determine if anything untoward is occurring. If they think something untoward is occurring they have a whistleblower process, but it's not up to them to decide if something is actually a problem or not.

2) as Jim Carrey said loudly in the movie liar liar, "then stop breaking the law!"

3) agreed, but Congress has the power to impeach in case he mismanages this, or abuses it. My point here is that there's more to read than just this one "transcript". You agree but there is more to read.

4) he appointed his own FBI chief. He has his own people at other levels. Yet the people who've looked into it, Trump's people and people who came in earlier, are still saying Russia is the one who hacked the DNC server. Only unappointed clown without regular access to info like Giuliani believe that crap.  And Trump.  But that's more because Trump doesn't read.

5) your perspective shifts again. After admitting that there's more to look at than just one call, now you're narrowing down to just the one call again. Sure, if the only time Trump's people ever mentioned Biden was in this one call, that might not be worth noticing. But we have testimony now that shows it was a pattern. Trump's people talked about biden a lot whenever they were talking to Ukraine.

6) take the transcript, and cross out all references to Joe Biden or crowd strike? I don't see any remaining references to any other corrupt incident, or corruption in general.  Do you?

My Gosh...  

1.) No they don't.  There is no such thing as a whistleblower against the chief executive.  WHY?  Because he has access to a constellation of information and data that no one else in the government has.  Every witness in the impeachment inquiry that said something "untoward" was happening, had to admit that they had ZERO understanding of the potential allegations against Joe Biden, any supporting evidence etc. so by their own admission they are completely and totally unqualified to even comment on some form of corrupt intent.  

2.) He released the Transcript, another transcript, and a letter between he and the Incoming president of Ukraine debunking every allegation that the Dems have made.  We have the actual transcripts and documentary evidence, we have the denials by the whitehouse, we have the unequivocal denials by every level of the Ukrainian Government, we have the direct evidence of wrongdoing and deception by the Biden Team and the Democrats but wait....  Jim Taylor, (Did work for an NGO partnered with Burisma) Heard something at the water cooler....  George Kent (Set up the NACB that helped to set up Paul Manafort and whose director was conviceted of interfering in our elections) has concerns...  Yovanavitch (admitted to allowing Ukrainian interference in our elections and denied Visas to witnesses against Joe Biden) cried on TV.  Let's forget what we can prove #ORANGEMANBAD 

3.) No, Congress has the power to impeach if he Betrays the country.  #CONTEXTUALREADING #LEGISLATIVESUPREMACY #NOTHINGBURGER

4.) How the #$@^#$^#%$*%^**&%&(^^&  Would they know.  The FBI never examined the server!!!!  If the server is in Ukraine why is it in Ukraine and why didn't domestic authorities examine it?  My Gosh.  Pay attention!!!

5.) Really?  That's not what I heard.  Dates and times.  Who approached the Ukrainians?  When?  What was the direct threat made.  And who SPECIFICALLY ASKED for FABRICATION of evidence or MENTIONED the 2020 campaign.  

6.) #CHILDISH  Yeh you guys wasted 7 billion dollars that One person was responsible for overseeing, tried to ruin me, my reputation, sabotage my campaign, had my campaign manager resign and put in jail for the rest of his life, allowed my NSA director to be bankrupt, disgraced, may go to jail, Roger stone just got convicted, etc. etc. etc. but your right mike.  I don't understand why, when talking to the country that originated the Russia Hoax, any of that would be on the President's mind.  #IDIOCY #CANTDEFENDTHEBIDENS #BURISMA #HUNTER #DEVONARCHER

4) the server was never in Ukraine. Why do you let people make up bizarre stories like that?

---

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

As I read your responses I envision a 1970's ransom note.  You cut a letter out of this magazine, another off this page here, use two more from the TV guide ect.  Sure is conveys a message but nothing fits.

There's a guy here making three posts in a row, using dudes no one else has ever heard of on Twitter as sources for increasingly bizarre claims. Fox News won't even touch these claims. I try to step outside my bubble by reading CNN, Fox News, the BBC, so I know. But I'm the crazy one. OK.

---

My Gosh...  

1.) No they don't.  There is no such thing as a whistleblower against the chief executive.  WHY?  Because he has access to a constellation of information and data that no one else in the government has.  Every witness in the impeachment inquiry that said something "untoward" was happening, had to admit that they had ZERO understanding of the potential allegations against Joe Biden, any supporting evidence etc. so by their own admission they are completely and totally unqualified to even comment on some form of corrupt intent.  

2.) He released the Transcript, another transcript, and a letter between he and the Incoming president of Ukraine debunking every allegation that the Dems have made.  We have the actual transcripts and documentary evidence, we have the denials by the whitehouse, we have the unequivocal denials by every level of the Ukrainian Government, we have the direct evidence of wrongdoing and deception by the Biden Team and the Democrats but wait....  Jim Taylor, (Did work for an NGO partnered with Burisma) Heard something at the water cooler....  George Kent (Set up the NACB that helped to set up Paul Manafort and whose director was conviceted of interfering in our elections) has concerns...  Yovanavitch (admitted to allowing Ukrainian interference in our elections and denied Visas to witnesses against Joe Biden) cried on TV.  Let's forget what we can prove #ORANGEMANBAD 

3.) No, Congress has the power to impeach if he Betrays the country.  #CONTEXTUALREADING #LEGISLATIVESUPREMACY #NOTHINGBURGER

4.) How the #$@^#$^#%$*%^**&%&(^^&  Would they know.  The FBI never examined the server!!!!  If the server is in Ukraine why is it in Ukraine and why didn't domestic authorities examine it?  My Gosh.  Pay attention!!!

5.) Really?  That's not what I heard.  Dates and times.  Who approached the Ukrainians?  When?  What was the direct threat made.  And who SPECIFICALLY ASKED for FABRICATION of evidence or MENTIONED the 2020 campaign.  

6.) #CHILDISH  Yeh you guys wasted 7 billion dollars that One person was responsible for overseeing, tried to ruin me, my reputation, sabotage my campaign, had my campaign manager resign and put in jail for the rest of his life, allowed my NSA director to be bankrupt, disgraced, may go to jail, Roger stone just got convicted, etc. etc. etc. but your right mike.  I don't understand why, when talking to the country that originated the Russia Hoax, any of that would be on the President's mind.  #IDIOCY #CANTDEFENDTHEBIDENS #BURISMA #HUNTER #DEVONARCHER

4) the server was never in Ukraine. Why do you let people make up bizarre stories like that?

Then what's the big deal?  


If it's not there then it's not there.  It's not like trump was telling lawyers @ the fbi to change emails to implicate us citizens.  That would be a problem.

---

As I read your responses I envision a 1970's ransom note.  You cut a letter out of this magazine, another off this page here, use two more from the TV guide ect.  Sure is conveys a message but nothing fits.

There's a guy here making three posts in a row, using dudes no one else has ever heard of on Twitter as sources for increasingly bizarre claims. Fox News won't even touch these claims. I try to step outside my bubble by reading CNN, Fox News, the BBC, so I know. But I'm the crazy one. OK.

---

My Gosh...  

1.) No they don't.  There is no such thing as a whistleblower against the chief executive.  WHY?  Because he has access to a constellation of information and data that no one else in the government has.  Every witness in the impeachment inquiry that said something "untoward" was happening, had to admit that they had ZERO understanding of the potential allegations against Joe Biden, any supporting evidence etc. so by their own admission they are completely and totally unqualified to even comment on some form of corrupt intent.  

2.) He released the Transcript, another transcript, and a letter between he and the Incoming president of Ukraine debunking every allegation that the Dems have made.  We have the actual transcripts and documentary evidence, we have the denials by the whitehouse, we have the unequivocal denials by every level of the Ukrainian Government, we have the direct evidence of wrongdoing and deception by the Biden Team and the Democrats but wait....  Jim Taylor, (Did work for an NGO partnered with Burisma) Heard something at the water cooler....  George Kent (Set up the NACB that helped to set up Paul Manafort and whose director was conviceted of interfering in our elections) has concerns...  Yovanavitch (admitted to allowing Ukrainian interference in our elections and denied Visas to witnesses against Joe Biden) cried on TV.  Let's forget what we can prove #ORANGEMANBAD 

3.) No, Congress has the power to impeach if he Betrays the country.  #CONTEXTUALREADING #LEGISLATIVESUPREMACY #NOTHINGBURGER

4.) How the #$@^#$^#%$*%^**&%&(^^&  Would they know.  The FBI never examined the server!!!!  If the server is in Ukraine why is it in Ukraine and why didn't domestic authorities examine it?  My Gosh.  Pay attention!!!

5.) Really?  That's not what I heard.  Dates and times.  Who approached the Ukrainians?  When?  What was the direct threat made.  And who SPECIFICALLY ASKED for FABRICATION of evidence or MENTIONED the 2020 campaign.  

6.) #CHILDISH  Yeh you guys wasted 7 billion dollars that One person was responsible for overseeing, tried to ruin me, my reputation, sabotage my campaign, had my campaign manager resign and put in jail for the rest of his life, allowed my NSA director to be bankrupt, disgraced, may go to jail, Roger stone just got convicted, etc. etc. etc. but your right mike.  I don't understand why, when talking to the country that originated the Russia Hoax, any of that would be on the President's mind.  #IDIOCY #CANTDEFENDTHEBIDENS #BURISMA #HUNTER #DEVONARCHER

4) the server was never in Ukraine. Why do you let people make up bizarre stories like that?

Mike your very first rebuttal is "It's not a transcript".  These are words uttered during the phone conversation.  What do you call it?

---

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.
 

There's a guy here making three posts in a row, using dudes no one else has ever heard of on Twitter as sources for increasingly bizarre claims. Fox News won't even touch these claims. I try to step outside my bubble by reading CNN, Fox News, the BBC, so I know. But I'm the crazy one. OK.

---

4) the server was never in Ukraine. Why do you let people make up bizarre stories like that?

Mike your very first rebuttal is "It's not a transcript".  These are words uttered during the phone conversation.  What do you call it?

It's a memorandum of a conversation, re-written in the form of a dialogue.  There's stuff that is missing.  Hopefully it was just small talk.

---

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