Liberal Forum

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 2:49 pm » wrote:

Misty » 26 Jan 2020 2:30 pm » wrote:So you believe a court in Ukraine, the country you Trumpettes call the most corrupt country in the world, over that of one of Sniffles' own Homeland Security Advisers.
Just like you believe Putin over Sniffles' own intelligence agency heads.
And you wonder why I call you a Russian bot?

She shrieks, as she censors my answers as fast as her little fingers can push the buttons.
I can't know if the Ukrainian court is being honest, but it and other evidence utterly destroy your lie that this was debunked.

What other evidence do you have?

I provided two sources that say it was debunked.
Sniffles Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert, and the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.

What's your source that says it wasn't debunked?
Gatewaypundit?

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 2:36 pm » wrote:It's going to be coming out, and your corrupt party is ****.

That's right.
It's all going to be coming out, and your corrupt party will have to answer for why they participated in this sham trial and this cover up.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:01 pm » wrote:

Misty » 26 Jan 2020 2:58 pm » wrote:What other evidence do you have?
I provided two sources that say it was debunked.
Sniffles' Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert, and the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.
What's your source that says it wasn't debunked?
Gatewaypundit?

I don't see any evidence other than your claims, and your word is worth zero.
Like it on any matter.

So as usual you don't have any evidence.
Got it.
I'm not the least bit surprised.

It wasn't MY evidence you stupid moron,
It was that of Sniffles' Homeland Security adviser Tom Bossert, and the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:00 pm » wrote:You lied that the claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election was debunked.
Rudy Guiliani says he has extensive evidence including sworn affidavits supporting this, but he admits perhaps they're all lying.
My money is heavily on the claim that Ukraine did interfere......

So one of my two sources was from Sniffles own administration and the other was the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee.

And you choose to believe a drunken liar like Rudy Giuliani, who even admits that perhaps the Ukranian court is lying, and then you say that your money is heavily on the claim that Ukraine did interfere.

So IOW as usual, you don't have ****.

I can't anymore with this nonsense.
I'm done.
Not one more second will I waste with this ****.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:00 pm » wrote:You lied that the claim that Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election was debunked.
Rudy Guiliani says he has extensive evidence including sworn affidavits supporting this, but he admits perhaps they're all lying.

Do you actually read your own ****?

I'm about to lock this thread.

GTFO!



But before you go......read it and weep.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:26 pm » wrote:

You are a LIAR and Solomon is a HACK which I showed BEFORE when you touted him. Since you are a LIAR and a TRAITOR pretty much every source you spew is ridiculous and has ZERO credibility

The Hill has faced criticism for the hiring of John Solomon, who is described as a strong supporter of President Trump and aconspiracy theorist, with his previous opinion columnsunder reviewfor false content
ps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-hill/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/19/20971075/rudy-giuliani-john-solomon-ukraine-impeachment-trumpBut Solomon’s “journalism,” particularly on the subject of Ukraine, has been proven to be false, repeatedly. Solomon did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


Theforemost allegation made by Solomonwas published by the Hill in March, when Solomon interviewed the former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko. In the interview, he accused then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch of giving him a do-not-prosecute list to stop investigations into corruption. The accusation was proved false, and was ultimately recanted by Lutsenko himself — but by then, it was too late.


he falsehood had made it into the right-leaning media ecosystem, where other false allegations surfaced


Solomon’s conspiracy theories came from Rudy Giuliani and his allieshttps://www.justsecurity.org/66962/a-dozen-questions-for-john-solomon/In 2012, theColumbia Journalism Reviewconcluded that Solomon “has a history of bending the truth to his story line” and “distorting facts and hyping petty stories.” Among his claims to infamy is publishing the debunkedUranium One conspiracy.


TheState Departmentlabeled the charges in Solomon’s initial article about Yovanovitch “an outright fabrication.” Later, the Ukrainian prosecutor Solomon quoted as his source, Yuri Lutsenko, was dismissed from his position anddisavowedSolomon’s reporting, saying that Hunter Biden “did not violate anything” andnow saidthat his statements to Solomon about a do-not-prosecute list were false.
Many questions about Solomon’s part in the disinformation operation remain unanswered. Here are a few:
1. Did you ever take money or benefit, directly or indirectly, from Dmitry Firtash? Did DiGenova and Toensing introduce you to Firtash to serve as your source? Was it before they formally became his attorneys? To whom and how much did Firtash pay to generate and circulate the disinformation that you published?
2. How much did you pay Parnas? Was it your own money? Whose money was it? Was your employment or use of Parnas arranged by DiGenova and Toensing? Explain the involvement of your attorneys in the full range of your transactions with Parnas.
3. When did you hire DiGenova and Toensing as your attorneys and for what matters? How much have you paid them, over how long a period of time and for which specific services?
4. How many articles have you written that included information provided from sources you knew to be clients of your lawyers, DiGenova and Toensing? On what topics?
5. When you were publishing stories about the Clintons’ alleged involvement with the Uranium One company, did you tell your editors that one or more of your sources were represented by your lawyer Victoria Toensing? Beyond relying on your lawyer, what due diligence did you do to assess the credibility of those now discredited sources?
6. Rudy Giuliani sent Secretary of State Pompeo a file containing your articles and raw interview notes you conducted in the effort to fire U.S. ambassador Yovanovitch. Were you aware beforehand that Giuliani was involving Pompeo in the scheme? Detail the full scope of your involvement with and knowledge of Giuliani’s activities.
7. You claim that you met Parnas through Congressman Pete Sessions. When did you first become aware of the Parnas and Fruman financial contributions to Sessions? What other favors has Sessions done for you?
8. In your stories on Attorney General William Barr’s probe of the origins of the investigation of Russian intervention into the U.S. election of 2016, in which you have claimed FBI abuses and “troubling questions” about the Mueller Report, are you relying on DiGenova and Toensing, longtime associates of Barr, in communication with him to help you?
9. Did you enlist your attorneys to speak to Attorney General Barr to help you get a new job at Fox News from its chairman Rupert Murdoch? Was the subject of your employment raised in their meeting on October 9?
10. ProPublica reports that “Johanna Derlega, then The Hill’s publisher, wrote two memos to the company’s president, Richard Beckman, worrying that Solomon was tearing down the traditional wall separating the business side and the news coverage. She noted that Solomon [as executive vice president for Hill.TV] had negotiated a nearly $160,000 advertising deal with Job Creators Network, targeting business owners in Maine. Solomon then had a quote from that group’s director inserted in the story.” Was that the only story in which you intervened in which you had a financial stake in what has been described as “pay-to-play news?” How much money would you calculate you personally gained from writing or editing self-interested stories in The Hill? Derlega was forced out of her job at The Hill in April 2018. Did you play any role in her removal?
11. In May 2018, Bob Cusack, editor in chief of The Hill, notified colleagues that you would be “busy with our video initiatives, but effective immediately when he writes for us, it will be as an opinion contributor.” What precipitated that demotion? More recently, were you fired from The Hill?
12. Does Fox News fact check your stories?

https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/article/2019/nov/19/who-john-solomon-heres-what-we-know-about-journali/ohn Solomon, the journalist whose reports gave false credence to a number of Ukraine-related conspiraciesI could go on bt the [point is made SOLOMON is a HACK

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:26 pm » wrote:Here again is highly credible John Solomon..........

Highly credible my ***.

If he's so highly credible, then why did The Hill get so many complaints from their staff about his columns, that they are now doing a review of all of his work there.

And why was he moved from his original position leading the newspaper's video division to the opinion section to begin with?

Solomon was hired by the owner of The Hill, James Finkelstein, who is close to Giuliani and has been friends with Sniffles for decades.

Jimmy Finkelstein, the owner of The Hill, has flown under the radar. But he's played a key role in the Ukraine scandal

Misty » 26 Jan 2020 3:44 pm » wrote: Highly credible my ***.

Since the Senate trail has begun a cleare movement has taken place and now a majority or at LEAST a plurality of people want Trump impeached and removed from office

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:34 pm » wrote:

Misty » 26 Jan 2020 2:55 pm » wrote:You don't know if it's true or not?
But you keep babbling about it?

Do you think that the Republican controlled Senate Intelligence Committee is also lying when they say that it has been debunked?

No, I don't trust Burr one bit, but I have seen Senator Kennedy say explicitly he believes Ukraine did, but that it's not fully proved.

Well I BELIEVE that I am the Queen of England, but it hasn't been fully proved.

And Rudy BELIEVES it's true, but the Ukranians could be lying.

You get more ridiculous every **** day.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:31 pm » wrote:

Misty » 26 Jan 2020 3:27 pm » wrote:

Are you stupid enough to take that poll seriously or are you just being dishonest?

I guaran-****-tee you that if that poll was in Sniffles' favor, you would take it VERY seriously.
You **** hypocrite.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:55 pm » wrote:
Hey look, lots of insinuations and smears, but not one single instance of a specific mistake that Solomon has made.

You are of course a LIAR H8er a PROVEN LIAR. I cited a BUNCH of Solomon MISTAKES or LIES whichever they were and here is one of the most SUBSTANTIAL and the CITATION is in my previous post

Theforemost allegation made by Solomonwas published by the Hill in March, when Solomon interviewed the former Ukrainian prosecutor Yuri Lutsenko. In the interview, he accused then-US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch of giving him a do-not-prosecute list to stop investigations into corruption. The accusation was proved false, and was ultimately recanted by Lutsenko himself — but by then, it was too late.


ADDRESS the FACTS or STFU you GUTLESS COWARD and TRAITOR

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:59 pm » wrote:See you in November, psycho.

Oh good, so you're leaving until then?

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 3:59 pm » wrote:By how large a margin will Trump lose?

I never said he would lose at all you filthy liar.
I'm not that stupid.
He won once, so he could win again.

Here we go.
Once again Clem latches on to one question like a dog on a bone, and will club me over the head like a baby seal with it until the end of time.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 4:00 pm » wrote:By how large a margin will Trump lose?

As you can see, I already answered that, so you don't need to ask me another 100 times.

Termin8tor » 26 Jan 2020 6:53 pm » wrote:
Speaking of ridiculous and fascist, why did you censor this hugely important breaking news, psycho?

Speaking of you being a TRAITOR and you ARE a TRAITOR why do you keep pushing Russian Military Intelligence propaganda after it has been SHOWN to be Russian Military Intelligence propaganda? Speaking of you being a GUTLESS COWARD why do you run away CRYING from the FACTS I cite from legitimate sources that PROVE you are LYING FOR Russia or just LYING like the GUTLESS COWARD you are? Why cant you EVER even TRY to ADDRESS THE UNDENIABLE INDISPUTABLE FACTS that show you are a LIAR?

This why FOX News TRUMP TV viewers are so uniformed.

New data: Fox News’ evening shows avoid live coverage of Trump’s Senate impeachment trial.

Since Tuesday, January 21, Fox has aired just 13 hours and 39 minutes of the trial.

By contrast, CNN and MSNBC have both aired the trial nearly in its entirety -- CNN has aired 24 hours and 33 minutes while MSNBC has aired 24 hours and 14 minutes.

(MSNBC’s slightly lower time total is primarily due to commentary during roll call votes, which we did not count.)



The gap in coverage among the networks -- nearly 11 fewer hours on Fox -- is almost entirely due to the network’s evening shows (5 p.m. to midnight), which largely ignored the live proceedings after Day 1.

Fox aired 3 hours and 52 minutes of the January 21 session during evening broadcasts while CNN aired 6 hours and 18 minutes and MSNBC aired 6 hours and 1 minute.

During the January 22 session, Fox aired just 15 and a half minutes of coverage during evening hours while both CNN and MSNBC aired 3 hours and 58 minutes.

During prime-time programming, Fox’s Tucker Carlson Tonight and Hannity aired a combined total of just under 2 minutes of live trial footage.

During that same time frame, CNN and MSNBC each aired 1 hour and 43 minutes.

During the Senate's January 23 session, Fox’s evening coverage aired a paltry 4 and a half minutes of the trial live while both CNN and MSNBC each aired 4 hours and 24 minutes.

Fox’s prime-time shows virtually ignored live broadcasting of the trial; between 8 and 11 p.m., the network aired a total of 22 seconds, all of which were brief transitions between regular programming and commercial breaks during Tucker Carlson Tonight.

During that same time frame, CNN and MSNBC aired approximately 2 hours and 14 minutes each.

Misty » 27 Jan 2020 2:31 pm » wrote:This why FOX News TRUMP TV viewers are so uniformed.

Then why do we kick your moonbats sorry butts on the board every freaking day?

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2020 2:44 pm » wrote:
Then why do we kick your moonbats sorry butts on the board every freaking day?

That may be the single most DELUSIONAL statement ever made in the English language. You are a TRAITOR a LIAR and a BRAINWASHED MORON and we prove that EVERY SINGLE DAY. The ONLY thing you provide is entertainment like BATTING PRACTICE with your ignorant nonsense LIES and Russian Propaganda only the most egregious MORONS on the planet do anything but LAUGH at you or USE you as batting practice

[quote="Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2020 2:50 pm"]

She shrieks, as she censors all the information I cite.

You don't CITE information TRAITOR you cite OPINIONS LIES and Russian Military Intelligence propaganda

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2020 3:28 pm » wrote:Yadda, yadda, yadda.............

Check this out Precious.

Republican Senators Pushed for Ukraine Reforms at Same Time as Joe Biden

A 2016 letter sent by Republican members of the Senate Ukraine Caucus echoes calls for reforms to Ukraine’s prosecutor general’s office and judiciary that were made by then-Vice President Joe Biden.

The letter, signed by Republican senators Rob Portman, Mark Kirk, and Ron Johnson, as well as several Democrats, urged the former Ukrainian president to reform the country’s government to address longstanding corruption, including the removal of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

“Succeeding in these reforms will show Russian President Vladimir Putin that an independent, transparent and democratic Ukraine can and will succeed,” reads the letter.

“It also offers a stark alternative to the authoritarianism and oligarchic cronyism prevalent in Russia...

We similarly urge you to press ahead with urgent reforms to the Prosecutor General's Office and judiciary.”

Run, Forrest, run!

Trump waived executive privilege when he called Bolton a liar.

In a series of tweets just after midnight Monday, Trump responded to weekend reporting about a forthcoming book by his former national security adviser John Bolton.

The book reportedly reveals that Trump tied military aid for Ukraine to his demands for investigations into his political rivals.

Trump’s tweets directly dispute the truth of these claims.

He may have been hoping to push wavering Senate Republicans away from agreeing to call Bolton to testify in the impeachment trial.

But in the process, Trump probably waived any executive privilege that he could have claimed to keep Bolton quiet if that gambit fails.
[.......]
Just after midnight Monday, Trump tweeted: “I NEVER told John Bolton that the aid to Ukraine was tied to investigations into Democrats, including the Bidens.

In fact, he never complained about this at the time of his very public termination. If John Bolton said this, it was only to sell a book.”
[........]
If Trump fails in persuading the Senate that witnesses are unnecessary, then his best hope for preventing Bolton from providing damaging testimony is by asserting executive privilege.

But now, the executive privilege argument is no longer available.

Trump’s tweets directly denying the substance of Bolton’s reported allegations waive any privilege that might have protected them from public disclosure.

Privilege is meant to keep a president’s secrets confidential.

If the president reveals those secrets or publicly discusses the conversations himself, there is no longer any need to protect them from disclosure.

Termin8tor » 27 Jan 2020 2:44 pm » wrote:

Misty » 27 Jan 2020 2:31 pm » wrote:This why FOX News TRUMP TV viewers are so uniformed.

Then why do we kick your moonbats sorry butts on the board every freaking day?