Posted on 11/15/2019 3:19:47 PM PST by janetjanet998
Jane, I have been noticing that too.
Is this really Jim Acosta.
Sounds a lot like him.
And something printed in the NYT is only slightly less likely to be true than reading off a restroom wall. The NYT is part of the frame-up. :-)
They heard it from a friend who
Heard it from a friend who
Heard it from another
Then they told two friends....
Then they told two friends....
And so on....
And so on....
And so on....
And so on....
Chad Pergram
@ChadPergram
Colleague Mike Emanuel confirms the second Embassy staffer to overhear President Trump’s July 26th conversation with Ambassador Gordon Sondland is Suriya Jayanti - according to a well-placed source close to the impeachment probe.
So what. He wanted Zelensky to do the investigation, and Zelensky wanted to do the investigation. Yawn.
I have read that whole thing unfortunately, and have to say it is nothing but more of the same he-said she-said testimony. No evidence and no facts.
If there was some real smoking gun, it would be out by now. This thing is toast.
Holmes is their big “closer”. They will insist that he heard Trump himself ask Sondland if Zelensky had agreed to investigate Burisma and the Bidens?
After he testifies, the entire MSM will declare “Trump will be impeached and removed from office.” If Sondland turns on Trump, the Deep State will have Trump where they want him. If Sondland says Holmes misunderstood what was said on the call, the dems will have nothing.
Wanting to investigate Joe Biden is a crime. Persuading the POU (President of Ukraine) to investigate him is extortion and bribery. Even the President is not above the law, but Hunter and Papa Joe are. The law is whatever Adam Scif wants it to be. The question is, who is the master? Humpty Deepstate, or those yucky deplorables who keep electing people Humpty doesn’t like.
I’m sure Trump has realized by now, especially after the Kavanaugh circus, that the Deep State has put together a very coordinated frame-up. Now we are going to hear from 2 people who heard the Trump-Sondland call. Both of them will be lying, but there’s no way they will have to worry about perjury. There will be no one that could prove they are lying. If they can prove they were there and a call was made at that time. Whether they heard it or not, if they said they did, it can’t be disproved.
If Sondland turns on Trump, we will know that the Deep State has put together a solid frame-up.
Thanks for the clarification. This is not only hearsay, but the republicans can easily point out, there was no mention of Burisma or Biden. Barr & Trump team want an investigation of possible collusion by the Ukraine with DNC & Clinton in 2016.
I bet they will have someone else at the table come forward and make a statement they heard Trump say Biden, because this Holmes statement won’t work for the dems.
If Sondland confirms that’s what Trump was talking about, whole impeachment circus is over.
I’ve studiously ignored the whole thing, and just listened to what other people had to say about it. Saved a lot of time, and I have more direct knowledge than Taylor! My hearsay is only two or three times removed.
Here on Freep we’ve invented terms such as “auntie Fay”, “libtard” and “leftard” and we’re still letting them off easy. We’ve simply not yet found a word to do these people justice. Whenever we think they can’t possibly get worse, they do.
If CNN tells me it’s Tuesday, I check the calendar to be sure.
I think the Dems are now trying to sell impeachment to the deplorables. Not the real deplorables, but what they imagine the deplorables are.
They have one witness with a uniform and shiny medals who has no direct evidence of anything, just his opinions. We have another who’s a woman and can cry on cue, who’s upset that she got fired. Now we’re supposed to believe Holmes because he’s somehow related to Sherlock? I recall that Nancy, taunting Trump, challenged him to bring some “exculpatory” evidence, then caught herself and changed that to “evidence that you’re innocent,” dumbing down her vocabulary for both Trump and any deplorables who might be listening, and assuming that neither knows that the burden of proof is on the accuser.
So we see that they are making a condescending, patronizing appeal to the emotions of people who are not too smart and unfamiliar with the basic principles of due process. After all, Hillary said that “deplorables” are all racists, so how much due process can they have used when they formed their last lynch mob—ooops. Sorry. “Lynch” is a racist term when used by whitey.
If they were appealing to the sensibilities of American Indi—sorry; Native Americans, would they use terms like “heap big” and “Orange Man speak-um with forked tongue” or “big white tepee”?
If only Nancy, Chuck, Sciff and Nadler weren’t in “safe districts,” what a pleasure it would be to forcibly remove them from their respective podiums in the Capitol come January of 2021. But they will continue to haunt the People’s House until they beat Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd’s records.
_________
Well, Schifftlips is a Wannabe Hollywood script writer. After all he's done PUBLIC D.C. Parodies in the past. He would like how this sounds.
This is my cue to link Tom Shillue, merry parodist and all around funny guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FA0a7f1nxB4
It’s a regular feature on the Gutfeld show, and it’s red hot!
How would he know if someone else’s phone was set on speakerphone or not? How do you tell if someone else is using that setting or not when the conversation is loud?
. . . David Holmes' opening statement, saying that he heard Trump telling Gordon Sondland: "So, he's gonna do the investigation?" Sondland tells Trump: "He's gonna do it" and that Zelensky will do "anything you ask for."
This is dispositive of nothing except that some “he” is going to do an “investigation” of something. Could be Zelensky, could be Giuliani, could be Inspector Clouseau, or David “Sherlock” Holmes, sitting across the table from Sondland making deductions from incomplete information, who knows who “he” is. Holmes jumped to another one of Shifty Schiff’s witness’ infamous conclusions, based on zero facts, that of the “Bidens” who they could not have known had been brought up in the call neither one was privy to made just the day before. It could have just as easily been “investigations into the pervasive corruption in Ukraine which Trump was seeking.” They did not know, but jumped to an unwarranted assumption. . . Which is making an ass out of themselves because they WANTED that to be the case, whether it was true or not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.