"This is a coverup"

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: IAMTAT
watch out
he will tell you 7 times why it is a fake

Actually I gave up the path of Nurgle long ago. I follow the eightfold path now.


Join us.

"I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though and I'm gonna say this only seven times, so you better listen good,"

more along the lines of what I was thinking

Woops, my bad. I guess you can tell I have a hard time passing up an opportunity for a 40k reference

a reply to: Wayfarer

you mean like Talib, Omar, AOC, Watters and a few other that say you should

"confront" conservativs every where they are in public and give them no peace, wink wink??


asking for a rumored friend "wink wink nudge nudge"

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: IAMTAT
watch out
he will tell you 7 times why it is a fake

Actually I gave up the path of Nurgle long ago. I follow the eightfold path now.


Join us.

"I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you, though and I'm gonna say this only seven times, so you better listen good,"

more along the lines of what I was thinking

Woops, my bad. I guess you can tell I have a hard time passing up an opportunity for a 40k reference

who doesn't?

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: hyperlexic
a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

I am loathe to repeat myself but there just aren't a lot of folks positing the facts.

The prosecutor did not say that (or at the very least there is no record of the prosecutor saying that). There are a variety of fake quotes floating around (many having popped up in the last day or so).

WAIT....you are just dismissing this sworn (notorized) government affidavit of the prosecutor from John Solomon as "fake"?
www.scribd.com...

Please explain WHY you think it is fake.

Vitaly Kasko, Shokin's Deputy, disagrees

Your article was from 5 months ago. Please address the recently released SWORN and notorized testimony by Shokin HIMSELF.

What is there to address? Shokin is saying one thing, and his deputy is saying another.

...and which one was under oath?

This is not the gotcha you imagine. Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

Officially notarized government testimony...given under oath...is, legally, given more credibility than a phone interview with the press.
Would you not agree?

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: hyperlexic
a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

I am loathe to repeat myself but there just aren't a lot of folks positing the facts.

The prosecutor did not say that (or at the very least there is no record of the prosecutor saying that). There are a variety of fake quotes floating around (many having popped up in the last day or so).

WAIT....you are just dismissing this sworn (notorized) government affidavit of the prosecutor from John Solomon as "fake"?
www.scribd.com...

Please explain WHY you think it is fake.

Vitaly Kasko, Shokin's Deputy, disagrees

Your article was from 5 months ago. Please address the recently released SWORN and notorized testimony by Shokin HIMSELF.

What is there to address? Shokin is saying one thing, and his deputy is saying another.

...and which one was under oath?

This is not the gotcha you imagine. Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

Officially notarized government testimony...given under oath...is, legally, given more credibility than a phone interview with the press.
Would you not agree?

Absolutely. Its just not a slam dunk close the books we're done nothing to see here moment. Shokin has his reasons for saying what he did (though they have yet to be proven if ever).

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: hyperlexic
a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

I am loathe to repeat myself but there just aren't a lot of folks positing the facts.

The prosecutor did not say that (or at the very least there is no record of the prosecutor saying that). There are a variety of fake quotes floating around (many having popped up in the last day or so).

WAIT....you are just dismissing this sworn (notorized) government affidavit of the prosecutor from John Solomon as "fake"?
www.scribd.com...

Please explain WHY you think it is fake.

Vitaly Kasko, Shokin's Deputy, disagrees

Your article was from 5 months ago. Please address the recently released SWORN and notorized testimony by Shokin HIMSELF.

What is there to address? Shokin is saying one thing, and his deputy is saying another.

...and which one was under oath?

This is not the gotcha you imagine. Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

Officially notarized government testimony...given under oath...is, legally, given more credibility than a phone interview with the press.
Would you not agree?

he would if it was OMB, but OMG does not compute.

it's a syntax error.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: RadioRobert

My only concern is that in order to effectively present this here required you to use a little finesse and nuance of language in your post.

...

So although I and others like me here really appreciate the post - those that would benefit most from it will never understand it because they are so blinded by partisan hatred - *they can't even see it in the first place.*

The person who swallows each new lie every week from the same people who lied the last time and the time before aren't interested in understanding. They are interested in believing. Every negative report tickles their confirmation bias, so they are more than happy to believe. The fact report after report ends up being as solid as smoke makes no impression on these people. Each report is eagerly grasped as "this is the one! We've finally got him!"

With that in mind, I don't think "nuance" is going to make a tinker's damn of difference.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: hyperlexic
a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

I am loathe to repeat myself but there just aren't a lot of folks positing the facts.

The prosecutor did not say that (or at the very least there is no record of the prosecutor saying that). There are a variety of fake quotes floating around (many having popped up in the last day or so).

WAIT....you are just dismissing this sworn (notorized) government affidavit of the prosecutor from John Solomon as "fake"?
www.scribd.com...

Please explain WHY you think it is fake.

Vitaly Kasko, Shokin's Deputy, disagrees

Your article was from 5 months ago. Please address the recently released SWORN and notorized testimony by Shokin HIMSELF.

What is there to address? Shokin is saying one thing, and his deputy is saying another.

...and which one was under oath?

This is not the gotcha you imagine. Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

Officially notarized government testimony...given under oath...is, legally, given more credibility than a phone interview with the press.
Would you not agree?

Absolutely. Its just not a slam dunk close the books we're done nothing to see here moment. Shokin has his reasons for saying what he did (though they have yet to be proven if ever).

Do you agree this should be investigated? an allegation has been made, do you think it should be looked into or ignored?

yes or no?.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Wayfarer

So any testimony or information that supports the president is a lie and any that denigrates him or his position must be taken at face value?

Not at all. Where did I give you that impression?

Right here:

Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

The implication in the question is that Shokin was lying under oath whereas those who were merely interviewed by a reporter were telling the truth.

Never mind the fact that the sworn testimony is more recent than the news article you linked.

originally posted by: thedigirati

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: hyperlexic
a reply to: Wayfarer
So does the prosecuter saying he was fired for investigating Bidens son and the Ukraine president saying he wasnt pressured at all mean they are both now Trump lackys? And are lying for Trump?

I am loathe to repeat myself but there just aren't a lot of folks positing the facts.

The prosecutor did not say that (or at the very least there is no record of the prosecutor saying that). There are a variety of fake quotes floating around (many having popped up in the last day or so).

WAIT....you are just dismissing this sworn (notorized) government affidavit of the prosecutor from John Solomon as "fake"?
www.scribd.com...

Please explain WHY you think it is fake.

Vitaly Kasko, Shokin's Deputy, disagrees

Your article was from 5 months ago. Please address the recently released SWORN and notorized testimony by Shokin HIMSELF.

What is there to address? Shokin is saying one thing, and his deputy is saying another.

...and which one was under oath?

This is not the gotcha you imagine. Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

Officially notarized government testimony...given under oath...is, legally, given more credibility than a phone interview with the press.
Would you not agree?

Absolutely. Its just not a slam dunk close the books we're done nothing to see here moment. Shokin has his reasons for saying what he did (though they have yet to be proven if ever).

Do you agree this should be investigated? an allegation has been made, do you think it should be looked into or ignored?

yes or no?.

YES! A thousand times YES!

Go through it with a fine tooth comb. Bury everyone who had their hand in the tainted cookie jar so-to-speak.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Wayfarer

So any testimony or information that supports the president is a lie and any that denigrates him or his position must be taken at face value?

Not at all. Where did I give you that impression?

Right here:

Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

The implication in the question is that Shokin was lying under oath whereas those who were merely interviewed by a reporter were telling the truth.

Never mind the fact that the sworn testimony is more recent than the news article you linked.

You keep dancing around the fact that just because its sworn testimony doesn't mean its unequivocally true. Has anybody lied in sword testimony before?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I agree 100%

Obama, Clinton, Trump, Harris, Schiff, Biden, Warren and Booker......


take all the dirty ones out.

on BOTH sides if they are dirty.

a reply to: Wayfarer

if this is your standard, why should anyone believe anything YOU say?


have you been sworn in??

so what you say means what exactly, using your own standards

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Wayfarer

So any testimony or information that supports the president is a lie and any that denigrates him or his position must be taken at face value?

Not at all. Where did I give you that impression?

Right here:

Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

The implication in the question is that Shokin was lying under oath whereas those who were merely interviewed by a reporter were telling the truth.

Never mind the fact that the sworn testimony is more recent than the news article you linked.

You keep dancing around the fact that just because its sworn testimony doesn't mean its unequivocally true. Has anybody lied in sword testimony before?

They (the corrupt media) has some of yall so messed up beyond repair its unbelievable.

The same ppl that lied about everything else about Trump are lying again now. Join us all in reality.

originally posted by: thedigirati
a reply to: Wayfarer

if this is your standard, why should anyone believe anything YOU say?


have you been sworn in??

so what you say means what exactly, using your own standards

Well nothing I'm saying is being used in a legal setting for starters. Second, that's part and parcel of proceedings for both sides to either refute or invalidate each others evidence/experts/etc.

I'm not chatting here on ATS because I want/need anybody to believe what I'm saying (and I assume most of the time folks here don't), so it doesn't really make much difference one way or another here on ATS (unlike the POTUS).

I'd like to think if someone believed what I'm saying its because I've shown enough evidence to convince them, but I'm not operating under and assumption of that happening here on ATS. Rather we're all here for the most part I assume because we're bored and we like debating with each other.

originally posted by: PurpleFox

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical

originally posted by: Wayfarer

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Wayfarer

So any testimony or information that supports the president is a lie and any that denigrates him or his position must be taken at face value?

Not at all. Where did I give you that impression?

Right here:

Are you saying nobody has ever lied under oath?

The implication in the question is that Shokin was lying under oath whereas those who were merely interviewed by a reporter were telling the truth.

Never mind the fact that the sworn testimony is more recent than the news article you linked.

You keep dancing around the fact that just because its sworn testimony doesn't mean its unequivocally true. Has anybody lied in sword testimony before?

They (the corrupt media) has some of yall so messed up beyond repair its unbelievable.

The same ppl that lied about everything else about Trump are lying again now. Join us all in reality.

I feel the same way about you my friend. Which one of us is right? Who knows. I still like debating with y'all though regardless.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
So I guess I missed it...

Can anyone tell me why the CIA had a plant in the white House?

The CIA agent wasn't a "plant". He was a government employee who was detailed to work for the National Security Council (NSC). The NSC was created by the National Security Act of 1947 and is considered to be part of the Executive Office of the President. It's function is to provide information to the POTUS coming in from all the US intelligence agencies and to then coordinate those actions that the POTUS decides on which require action of the Intelligence Community (IC) and the Department of Defense (DOD). In order to do the job it has been doing for the last 72 years, it needs to have personnel from all members of the IC and DOD located on-site with the political appointees who work for the Administration. That's why it's in the White House.

a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes, people have lied in sworn testimony, and when caught are charged.

Now that we have that out of the way, what makes you doubt Shokin's testimony?

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: Wayfarer

Yes, people have lied in sworn testimony, and when caught are charged.

Now that we have that out of the way, what makes you doubt Shokin's testimony?

As I understand it Shokin absolutely lied under sworn testimony....because, sometimes, some people lie under sworn testimony.

Does this set a precedent? Are Pelosis and Schumers and Nadler and Schiffs calls recorded ?

Could Trump say ok I showed you mine now she me yours and release their calls?