Jump to content

Professor Pigworth

Members
  • Content Count

    72
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

88 Excellent

About Professor Pigworth

  • Rank
    Practice Squad
  1. Man, that's a great line, and probably accurate too. It's like a Fabergé egg or Wordsworth poem or Bowman post. That's how good it is.
  2. I was all set to believe these latest incriminating allegations from John Bolton, but then I read Donald's tweet: I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens. Wow, those are really big capital letters in the word "Never," so now I'm thinking Donald absolutely must be telling the truth and that Bolton and all the other corroborating witnesses are the ones who are lying. Donald fans, please won't you join me in jumping up and down in your big, beautiful MAGA hats like they do in those wonderful rallies that the president holds? And remember: Donald loves every single one of you, now and forever! Four Big Takeaways From the Explosive John Bolton Revelations We have now learned precisely what John Bolton is prepared to tell us about President Trump’s Ukraine extortion scheme. This is terribly inconvenient for Republican senators who are frantically searching for ways to vote against hearing from Trump’s former national security adviser and any others who can shed fresh light on Trump’s corrupt conduct. After all, new revelations might complicate their preordained vote for acquittal, and that must not happen before that vote is cast. Bolton writes in an unpublished manuscript of his new book that Trump personally told him he was withholding nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine until officials there carried out the political dirty deeds he was demanding, the New York Times reports. According to Bolton, he and Trump discussed the matter in August 2019, when Bolton and others were urging Trump to release the aid. Trump said he preferred not to until Ukrainian officials turned over materials related to two false theories — one involving invented Joe Biden corruption in Ukraine, the other concerning fabricated Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election. This directly undercuts one of Trump’s key defenses — that the aid wasn’t frozen to coerce Ukraine into doing his political bidding. Here are four key takeaways: Trump’s new pushback is demonstrable nonsense. Trump rage-tweeted that he “NEVER” told Bolton the aid was tied to those investigations, and reiterated that the transcript of his call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky exonerated him. Nonsense. First, remember that Trump’s extortion demand was conveyed to Zelensky. This actually happened. Ambassador Gordon Sondland told a top Zelensky aide that the money was indeed conditioned on those investigations. Trump’s propagandists claim Sondland freelanced this, based on his declaration that he merely “presumed” a link. That was always absurd: Sondland took direction from Trump throughout, and Sondland even testified that Trump told him to convey to Zelensky that he must do Trump’s bidding, even as Zelensky was desperate for the money. But now we have Bolton prepared to testify that Trump himself directly confirmed this link to him, wrecking the “hearsay” defense. If Bolton were lying, you’d think Trump would want him to testify under oath, since Bolton’s account is set to appear in a book. Unless the game is to prevent his testimony to the Senate before the vote on Trump’s fate. Separately, the transcript just does show Trump using the power of his office to pressure Zelensky. Trump cannot make this disappear through disinformation. And so, his actual claim is that there’s nothing wrong with having done this. A key Trump legal defense now lies in ruins. Bolton’s lawyer says he provided the manuscript to the White House on Dec. 30, 2019, for classification review — nearly a month ago. Importantly, the Times reports that the manuscript might have given Trump’s lawyers a preview of what Bolton would testify. Note: It also intensified concerns among some of his advisers that they needed to block Mr. Bolton from testifying, according to two people familiar with their concerns. It appears Trump’s team wanted to block Bolton’s testimony for the express reason that Bolton would further incriminate Trump. Trump’s lawyers have claimed at his trial that “not a single witness” has “testified” to “any connection” between the aid and the investigations. This weasel language is telling: If it’s true that no witness has testified to this, it’s precisely because Trump blocked witnesses who could testify to it, such as Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. We now know Bolton actually would testify to this, which illustrates that the only way to make that defense technically true is for Trump and GOP senators to prevent him from testifying. Thus, that defense has been reduced to smoldering wreckage. Trump’s legal team likely previewed Bolton’s manuscript. Ned Price, a National Security Council official from 2014 to 2017, told me that internal declassification processes in such cases suggest it’s likely Trump’s legal team did indeed access Bolton’s manuscript. Bolton’s lawyer submitted it to the Records Management Directorate in the White House. Price pointed out that the White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, is leading Trump’s impeachment defense, which likely means Cipollone did get his hands on it. It was also widely known publicly that Bolton was shopping the manuscript around and that he’d indicated a willingness to testify at Trump’s trial — three weeks ago. “The White House counsel has tremendous reach inside any White House, especially this one,” Price told me. “It’s within the purview of the White House counsel to review records in the possession of the executive office of the president. It’s almost certain he would have sought the manuscript.” Jack Goldsmith, a White House lawyer under former president George W. Bush, adds that such manuscripts generally are internally circulated “widely.” So it’s very likely the White House knows exactly how Bolton would further incriminate Trump — and that this is exactly why Trump doesn’t want him to testify. GOP senators have no arguments left. GOP senators may seize on Trump’s latest tweets to claim that, since he denies Bolton’s account, there’s no reason to hear from Bolton, reports CNN’s Manu Raju:
  3. You too, eh? Damn! That's a shame. And now I see that poor Bowman has, I think, again tried to communicate, but I can't read anything of what he's written. Bowman, if you can read this, please try harder to get through. It's still not working. Thank you.
  4. Bowman, For reasons unknown to me, my settings have had you on "ignore" for the past couple weeks-- and, strangely, no one else-- so you'll have to speak up if you want me to hear what you have to say.
  5. Hang on a sec. Donald has just denied Bolton's claim against him. Donald's of course in the clear then. No way would he be lying about something this serious. I guess in that case I'm the one who owes Donald an apology. In fact, I think we all owe him a big apology. He deserves a hell of a lot more respect than he's been given thus far, even by his most loyal supporters. I for one pledge never again to put up images that in any way demean Donald. For example, this kind of thing:
  6. Now that Bolton has confirmed that Donald is a corrupt, lying scumbag who did indeed do what he's been accused of, I have every confidence that Sack will do the correct and honorable thing and no longer be a sell-out shill for the two-time election stealer. Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him.
  7. Let's see how long Lindsey will be "disturbed" by this latest revelation. I'm betting it won't be for more than a minute or so, and then he'll go right back to aiding the cover-up of the election stealer and voting to suppress all witnesses and documents. Generalissimo Donald says: "That's a real nice country you've got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it." Tя☭mp, when he thinks back on all the suckers he scammed throughout his life who either did business with him or who voted for him.
  8. So you're able to refute the large body of evidence against Donald, are you? That's interesting, because no one on Donald's side has so far been able to do that in the House or Senate. They haven't even tried. They've just been banging on about procedure and various grievances, red herrings, etc. If the case against Donald is so weak, why do you think they don't speak about the evidence?
  9. Oh, dear. Another sensitive soul and purist who's bothered by political posts, and who just happens at the same time to be a Donald supporter frustrated by the bad things being said against Donald. Why is it that people who are bothered so much by political posts are always supporters of Donald? I may be wrong, but I don't ever remember an anti-Tя☭mp poster being upset about there being too many political posts. My impression is that this frustration with political posts expressed every so often is just another attempt to try to silence opposition to Dear Leader. Generalissimo Donald says: "That's a real nice country you've got there. Be a shame if anything happened to it."
  10. Donald Supporters: Is Schiff wrong? How is he wrong? https://videonews.today/rep-adam-schiff-if-right-doesnt-matter-we-are-lost-125550
  11. Apparently, Donald also seems to be under the impression that whoever invented the wheel needs protecting as well. Whoever he was died even longer ago than Edison, as in maybe tens of thousands of years ago during the time of the caveman. (This of course includes Raquel Welch, the Flintstones, etc.) That's just a hell of an intellect that Donald possesses. I think I've been completely wrong about him all this time and now believe he should be appointed dictator for life.
  12. Being humiliated isn't new to Donald. For instance, there was the time Donald said "It's not like you've got China on your border" to the Indian prime minister, before later learning that, yes, China is on India's border. Doh! Donald Trump once left Indian prime minister Narendra Modi shocked after telling him India and China didn't share a border, according to a new book by two Pulitzer-winning journalists, news.com.au reports. In the book, A Very Stable Genius, Washington Post journalists Phillip Rucker and Carol Leonning claim the incident took place during a face-to-face meeting between the pair, although it doesn't specify which one. "It's not like you've got China on your border," Trump told Mr Modi. The Indian leader's eyes "bulged out in surprise", according to one of the President's aides. Modi's expression "gradually shifted, from shock and concern to resignation" following Trump's remarks. The aide said they felt Modi probably "left that meeting and said, 'This is not a serious man. I cannot count on this man as a partner'."
  13. Donald's lawyer, Pat Cipollone, yesterday: "President Trump is a man of his word." Everybody in the world who's not a cult of Donald member: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! [With apologies to dear Sarah, who got put out to pasture or something.]
  14. No witnesses or documents were allowed in the House? That's patently untrue. Who told you this? Donald and Rand Paul? Why do you still continue to believe the lies of a serial liar like Donald Trump? Even if the Democrats were being overly partisan, what is the excuse for not allowing witnesses and documents in Donald's trial? Don't you want to see his innocence proven and the perfection of his phone call confirmed? Or is it that you think Donald really is guilty as sin and you fear a fair trial?
×
×
  • Create New...