Click to Translate to English Click to Translate to French  Click to Translate to Spanish  Click to Translate to German  Click to Translate to Italian  Click to Translate to Japanese  Click to Translate to Chinese Simplified  Click to Translate to Korean  Click to Translate to Arabic  Click to Translate to Russian  Click to Translate to Portuguese  Click to Translate to Myanmar (Burmese)

Forum Home Forum Home > Off Topic Forum > Political Discussion > Politics - Political Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Never- Chumper
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Online Discussion: Tracking new emerging diseases and the next pandemic since 2005; Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic Discussion Forum.

Never- Chumper

 Post Reply Post Reply
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Never- Chumper
    Posted: November 18 2019 at 12:21am
Never-CHUMPER= Someone who is Loyal to the USA

NOT Loyal to someone who would sell his soul

Steal from charities,grab woman's pussys... .

Do dodgy deals.....

I mean if it was "beyond reasonable doubt"

Who do you believe......

I think the jump over croc moment was

Some republican equating Bono with Gulliani.....

Come on ,you can fool some of the people some of the time..........
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 18 2019 at 3:44am
Re:visit to the doc's

I see a heel spur moment on the horizon.......!!!!!!!
Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth.🖖

Marcus Aurelius
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2019 at 8:56pm
Donald Trump is digging in after two weeks of public impeachment hearings
By Washington bureau chief Zoe Daniel
Posted3 hours ago, updated2 hours ago
Donald Trump stands at a lectern with his hands up in a shrugging motion
Mr Trump has characterised some of those who have testified publicly in the hearings as "Never Trumpers".(AP)
With the last of the scheduled public impeachment hearings coming to a close, three things are now clear.

1.The Trump administration did seek a 'quid pro quo' from Ukraine.
2.The diplomats and staffers involved are trying to save themselves.
3.US President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani are at the centre of the scheme.
But three key questions remain unanswered.

1.Was any of this an impeachable offence?
2.Did the hearings change the minds of voters?
3.And will the final outcome advantage Democrats or Republicans?
Duration: 35 seconds35s

Mr Sondland said he "never received a clear answer" on why the United States suspended security aid to Ukraine.
The hearings form a cohesive narrative
The 12 witnesses who testified before cameras have corroborated, in detail, each other's evidence. That evidence is based on conversations, meetings, text messages and emails between those who were doing the negotiating over several months.

Mr Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate the business dealings of Democrat Joe Biden's son, Hunter, who was once a board member of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma.

(Such an investigation would likely damage Mr Biden's chances of winning the Democratic presidential nomination and the 2020 election.)

Mr Trump also wanted Ukraine to investigate a discredited conspiracy theory that Ukraine worked with Democrats to plant evidence on the Democratic National Committee server in 2016 to implicate Russia in election meddling, helping trigger the Mueller probe.

Mr Giuliani was deployed by the President as the point man to get these investigations to happen.

US diplomats and national security staff were unhappy about having to work with Mr Giuliani, but they did it anyway "at the express direction of the President of the United States".

"We did not want to work with Mr Giuliani. Simply put, we were playing the hand we were dealt," US ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland said.

"We followed the President's orders."

This big statement came from a political appointee who paid $US1 million for a VIP ticket to Mr Trump's inauguration. But he didn't stop there.

"I know that members of this committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?'" Mr Sondland said in sworn testimony.

"With regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."

Three things were at stake in the 'quid pro quo'
1.A phone call between the American and Ukrainian presidents
2.A White House summit between the pair
3.US military aid to Ukraine to support its fight against Russian-backed rebels
All three were used as bargaining chips while negotiations went on behind the scenes to try to get the newly elected Ukrainian President, Volodymir Zelenskiy, who was in need of credibility, to publicly announce the investigations.

Vice-President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Mr Sondland, US Special Rep for Ukraine ambassador Kurt Volker, acting Ukraine ambassador Bill Taylor, National Security Council Europe reps Tim Morrison and Lt Col Alexander Vindman and others are all said to have been in the loop, albeit at different stages.

"A lot of senior officials … a lot of senior officials … everyone was in the loop. It was no secret," Mr Sondland said.

The Vice-President's office has pushed back hard on the allegations.

The President homed in on a conversation with Mr Sondland that the Ambassador recounted in his deposition. Mr Trump read it out loud to the White House press corps.

"'I want nothing, that's what I want from Ukraine,' that's what I said. I want nothing. I said it twice. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelenskiy to do the right thing."

Sondland didn't really buy it
However, Mr Sondland says that in spite of that exchange, he "came to believe" that the suspension of military aid to Ukraine was linked to the administration's push for politically motivated investigations.

Mr Sondland also says he has evidence in the form of text messages showing that the White House phone call and meeting were being used as an incentive for the Ukrainian President.

"I was presuming on the aid," he said, but not the other things.

Republicans seized on his presumption.

Mr Sondland's testimony heavily implicates Mr Pompeo, who has denied involvement in the Ukraine affairs. In an email to Mr Pompeo on August 22, Mr Sondland wrote:

"I would ask Zelenskiy to look [Mr Trump] in the eye and tell him that once Ukraine's new justice folks are in place mid-Sept, that [Mr Zelenskiy] should be able to move forward publicly and with confidence on those issues of importance to POTUS and to the US."

"Hopefully, that will break the logjam" on funding.

The ambassador also said he was directed by the State Department and the White House not to testify and access to phone and email records was blocked, raising an obstruction of justice question.

Is this all just the work of Never Trumpers, seeking revenge?
Mr Sondland's testimony was the most explosive so far in a group that Mr Trump has sought to characterise as "Never Trumpers". They're plainly not.

All those who have testified publicly have had distinguished careers in public service under various administrations.

Jennifer Williams, a Veteran foreign service officer and special adviser on Europe and Russia to Mr Pence, was asked in the hearings if she'd describe herself as a "Never Trumper".

"I would not, no," she replied.

"Tell Jennifer Williams, whoever that is, to read BOTH transcripts of the presidential calls, & see the just released statement from Ukraine. Then she should meet with the other Never Trumpers, who I don't know & mostly never even heard of, & work out a better presidential attack!" Mr Trump tweeted ahead of her testimony.

Ms Williams was one of the few national security officials who listened and took extensive notes during the July 25 telephone call between Mr Trump and the Ukraine President.

She said that the conversation was "more political in nature" than other calls with foreign leaders and that she felt it was "unusual and inappropriate".

Then there was Lt Col Vindman
"I would call myself never partisan," he replied, when he was asked if he was a Never Trumper.

Lt Col Vindman, who was born in Ukraine and came to the United States as a young child, was on the receiving end of some toxic attacks over his decision to report the call to his supervisor and testify.

He's been threatened to the extent that he may need to move his family to a guarded location, and felt the need to reassure his father during his statement.

A purple heart recipient after a tour in Iraq, he was attacked by the President for appearing in uniform at the hearing, which is standard for serving officers.

And of course, there was Mr Sondland, who was appointed by Mr Trump and says he's phoned the President at least 20 times.

"I don't know him very well. I have not spoken to him much," Mr Trump said.

In October, he called him "a really good man and a great American".

It's clear the parties disagree. It's unclear what happens next
Republicans made much this week of the fact that Mr Trump asked the Ukrainian President for a "favour". That was not an order in the military context, they said, and therefore does not fit the criteria for bribery, or any other impeachable offence.

Democrats plainly disagree and will likely move to a House vote on impeachment in the next four weeks.

Today's crystal ball indicates a House vote will succeed, and a later Senate vote in the new year will likely fail.

Polls show the population continues to be evenly split on impeachment. The hearings, more to the point, appear to be simply entrenching the partisan divide that exists both in Congress and across America.

Seventy per cent of registered voters say they're paying "very" or "fairly close" attention to the impeachment inquiry.

However, the 2019 attention span is short, and with a definitive outcome unlikely, that attention may swiftly shift to the election in the new year.

For now, from the White House:

Related Stories
Russia analyst refuses to buy into Ukraine 'narrative' at impeachment inquiry
'Bombshell' impeachment testimony terrible for Donald Trump
'I want nothing': Trump's notes reveal his defence after witness implicates him in Ukraine 'quid pro quo'
White House official calls Trump's Ukraine call 'improper', raises concerns over his safety
Top Stories
Channel Nine ordered to pay Wagner family $2 million over defamatory 60 Minutes report
33 minutes ago
Live: Warner one run away from drought-breaking Test ton at the Gabba
10 minutes ago
Analysis: The public impeachment hearings just ended. Things don't look good for Donald Trump
Federal Court imposes interim control order on former Islamic State suspect
1 hour ago
Prince Andrew under pressure, ex-girlfriend reveals more about Epstein
36 minutes ago
ABC NEWS Newsletter
Email Address
First Name
Connect with ABC News
ABC Help
© 2019 ABC
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 21 2019 at 9:13pm

The Guardian - Back to home

Trump impeachment inquiry: Fiona Hill rebukes Republicans for 'fictional' Ukraine narrative – video
Trump impeachment inquiry
Fiona Hill rebukes conspiracy theory – and emerges as a heroine for our times
The Russia expert’s opening statement, delivered in her north-east England accent, stood out for its bluntness

Julian Borger in Washington
Thu 21 Nov 2019 17.49 EST
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
Long before Fiona Hill arrived to testify on Capitol Hill, there was a long line for public seats and a crackling sense of anticipation for one of the most important moments so far in the impeachment of Donald Trump.

The occasion did not disappoint. It was an epic encounter about public service, loyalty, the founding ideals of the United States, foreign policy and the treatment of women. Hill, formerly the top Russia expert in the White House, emerged as a national heroine, for her mastery of facts and argument, and her coolness under pressure.

The six hours of speeches and interrogation were far from over when Republicans on the intelligence committee stopped trying to outwit her and poke holes in her testimony. They resorted to making statements rather than asking questions. Meanwhile, Twitter had fallen into a collective swoon.

She was deemed a “national treasure” by Politico’s congressional bureau chief, John Bresnahan. Nicolle Wallace, who worked in George W Bush’s White House declared: “I spent much of my career in politics. I’ve never seen anyone like Fiona Hill.”

George Conway – lawyer, leading Trump critic and husband of one of the president’s top advisers – declared he was starting a Fiona Hill fan club.

When Hill was senior director of the national security council (NSC), the president seems to have been only vaguely aware of her importance, mistaking her early on for a secretary. But that was not necessarily unusual. As Hill testified on Thursday, Trump also had no idea who his Ukraine adviser was.

Impeachment hearings: Sondland was ‘involved in domestic political errand’, Hill testifies – live
Now the 54-year-old Hill, born in northern England, who had gone to work for Trump in the spirit of non-partisan public service, was emerging – unwillingly but inexorably – as his nemesis.

Even before she appeared at her first public hearing on Thursday, she was cast as a central figure in the impeachment saga, and not just because she was a witness to key events at the White House.

Many people saw in Hill an antithesis, if not a cure, to some of the toxins corroding her adopted nation. She walked into the committee room in the Longworth building of the House of Representatives, a woman before an almost all-male panel, cool and forensic at a time of partisan vitriol, an emissary from the world of scholarship cast into the midst of a battle in which facts are in danger of being defeated by manipulated opinion.

In her testimony on Thursday, Hill confirmed a story that had appeared in the press that when she was 11, a schoolboy set fire to her pigtails when she was sitting an exam. She doused the burning hair and finished the test. She joked that it led to a bowl haircut from her mother that left her looking like Richard III in her school photo. It also sounded like a metaphor for Thursday’s hearings.

Hill took her seat and the witness table alongside David Holmes, a US diplomat sucked into the maelstrom because he had been witness to a raucous phone conversation between Trump and one of his politically appointed ambassadors in a Kyiv restaurant.

David Holmes and Fiona Hill on Capitol Hill. Photograph: Susan Walsh/AP
Both gave opening statements, but Hill’s immediately stood out for its bluntness, and for the personal history underlying it. She began by pointing out that she had become an American by choice and had come from the same part of north-east England as George Washington’s forefathers.

She grew up in County Durham in a family that “always struggled with poverty” and whose men had been coalminers through generations. Her own father, Alfred Hill, first went down the pit at the age of 14, to join his father, brother, uncles and cousins, digging Durham coal. Her mother, a midwife, still lives in Hill’s home town.

When coalmining died in Durham, Hill’s father wanted to immigrate to the US, but could not leave because his mother had been debilitated by a life of hard labour and he had to stay to care for her.

Alfred Hill lived long enough to see his daughter escape poverty, cross the Atlantic and rise to become one of the foremost experts on the Soviet Union and Russia in Washington.

Hill’s opening message to the two ranks of members of Congress arranged in front and above her was that she had come before them as the very embodiment of the American dream. Because of Britain’s enduring social rigidity, she had to emigrate for her talent and expertise to be valued properly.

“I grew up poor, with a very distinctive working-class accent,” she told the House intelligence committee in that same accent, somewhat softened now by her years in the US. “In England in the 1980s and 1990s, this would have impeded my professional advancement. This background has never set me back in America.”

She had served under three presidents, including in the role of national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. She co-wrote a book on the Russian president called Mr Putin: Operative in Kremlin, which focuses on how his KGB mindset influences how he rules and how he conducts Russian foreign policy.

It was because of her mastery of her subject that she was asked to work in the White House in 2017. She decided to take the NSC job, despite the trepidation of some friends and colleagues, because she thought she could help with the official policy of the Trump administration, mend relations with Moscow as much as possible while deterring Russia’s most menacing behaviour.

The other half of Hill’s underlying message to Congress was that the country’s political leadership was in danger of destroying the very ideals that had drawn her and generations of immigrants to the United States in the first place. And it was even worse than that: politicians were taking an axe to their own country at Putin’s bidding.

Her opening statement was a blunt rebuttal of a conspiracy theory adopted by Trump’s supporters in Congress that it was Ukraine, not Russia, that had meddled in the 2016 US elections, in favour of the Democrats, rather than Trump.

Fiona Hill testifies before the House intelligence committee. Photograph: Andrew Harnik/AP
Hill called it “a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves”.

The previous day, Putin, unable to contain his glee, had told an economic forum in the Russian capital: “Thank God, no one is accusing us of interfering in the US elections any more; now they’re accusing Ukraine.”

Hill appealed to her inquisitors: “I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests.”

Devin Nunes, the ranking Republican on the committee, bridled at her remarks – unsurprisingly, as his role throughout the proceedings has been to propagate the conspiracy theory that Hill was talking about. Nunes insisted that Republicans had produced their own report about Russian interference and it was quite possible that two foreign governments had meddled.

In her answers to the initial round of questions, Hill took that argument apart. The judgment that Russia had successfully intervened in the election was underpinned by the consensus of the US intelligence agencies, and was based on facts, many of them in the public domain. The Ukraine story was built on falsehoods, many of them propagated through social media by the Kremlin.

It is a distinction that has been in danger of being washed away. Hill was there to re-establish clear lines, and it was not clear how Trump and his camp would respond. Trump, normally quick to launch attacks on perceived threats, especially women, had restrained his Twitter thumbs for the whole morning.

Republicans on the committee, even Jim Jordan, the most aggressive among them, veered away from taking her on directly.

Hill walked out of the committee room as she had walked in, unflappable and serious, apart from a single smile reserved for the uniformed policeman at the door as she left the chamber.

Trump impeachment inquiry
Donald TrumpUkraineUS politicsVolodymyr Zelenskiyfeatures
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via EmailShare on LinkedInShare on PinterestShare on WhatsAppShare on Messenger
View on
About us
Contact us
Complaints and corrections
Work for us
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Your privacy
Terms & conditions
All topics
All writers
Modern Slavery Act
Digital newspaper archive
Advertise with us
Search jobs
Discount Codes
Support The Guardian
Back to top
© 2019 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved.
Back to Top
Technophobe View Drop Down
Assistant Admin
Assistant Admin

Joined: January 16 2014
Location: Scotland
Status: Offline
Points: 77610
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Technophobe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 22 2019 at 1:26am
I confess I have been watching this obsessively - well when I can - our local news is 'light' on American affairs.

This lack of coverage is probably no bad thing. You can only peer into the sewer for so long, before you have to replace the cover to keep the smell in.

I thought Hilary a bit corrupt, careless of her country's secrets and power hungry. I even sympathised with the "rock and a hard place" choices facing the American public at the last election. Not any more.

What I have seen so far puts that into perspective:

This was not corrupt, it was the epitome of corruption, THE MAFIA COULD TAKE LESSONS!
This was not careless of the country's secrets; it was willing, nay happy, to trade them for political advantage BLATANTLY, SHAMELESSLY, DANGEROUSLY!
This was not power hungry it's RAVENOUS! How can this man say America first and then give advantages to the Russians whilst damaging an ally? I don't have a word for that.

America, all politicians are somewhat corrupt all around the world - ours aren't perfect; but yours take first prize and have invented their own Superbowl to dominate.
Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2019 at 1:18pm
Benedict Arnold......

Springs to Mind.......

Selling your country out for a few pieces of silver!!!!!!

OFF TO THE TOWER.......(British inside joke)

or fall on your sword........

Even Nixon resigned......

To save the office of President......

Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 23 2019 at 2:34pm

The Guardian - Back to home

Rudy Giuliani insisted the two Soviet-born Americans ‘didn’t have personal communications with the president’.
Show caption
Trump impeachment inquiry
Trump impeachment: Giuliani plays down Parnas link and repeats ‘insurance’ claim
Lawyer: Soviet-born go-betweens ‘weren’t James Bond’
New revelations pitch Nunes into impeachment drama
Impeach: Neal Katyal makes strong case against Trump
Guardian staff and agencies
Sat 23 Nov 2019 17.14 EST
Share on FacebookShare on TwitterShare via Email
Two Soviet-born Americans who form a key link between Donald Trump and Ukraine “weren’t James Bond”, the president’s lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, said on Saturday, insisting the men “didn’t have personal communications with the president” during a time period under intense scrutiny in the impeachment inquiry.

John Bolton announces his next move will be Pac amid calls to testify
Giuliani also repeated a remark made to the Guardian earlier this month, that he is not worried about Trump throwing him under the bus as an impeachment vote and Senate trial loom, because he has “insurance”.

Some observers have treated such remarks as potential veiled threats to Trump, to flip and tell House investigators everything he knows. Others, including Giuliani’s own lawyer, have insisted the former New York mayor is joking.

Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman played key roles earlier this year as Giuliani tried – at the president’s direction – to get Ukraine to investigate both Democratic presidential contender Joe Biden and his son and a discredited conspiracy theory about supposed Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US election.

Nearly $400m in military aid was held up with a White House meeting for the Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, also dangled as bait. That quid pro quo, confirmed in public testimony by Trump appointee Gordon Sondland, lies at the heart of what Democrats say is an abuse of power that merits Trump’s impeachment and removal from office.

I discovered a pattern of corruption that the Washington press has been covering up for three or four years
Parnas and Fruman were arrested last month on a four-count indictment that includes charges of conspiracy, making false statements to the Federal Election Commission and falsification of records. Both pleaded not guilty.

Parnas has indicated a willingness to cooperate with Congress. On Friday, CNN reported that a lawyer for Parnas said his client was willing to testify about meetings between Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the House intelligence committee conducting the impeachment inquiry, and a former Ukrainian prosecutor general in Vienna in 2018, allegedly to discuss digging up dirt on Biden.

The same evening, newly released state department documents showed Parnas and Fruman’s involvement in contacts between Giuliani and the secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, in the months before the US ambassador to Ukraine was abruptly recalled, an event under scrutiny by the House panel.

The documents were released to the group American Oversight in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. They showed that Pompeo talked to Giuliani on 26 March and 29 March. Last week, former ambassador Marie Yovanovitch told House investigators she felt “kneecapped” by a “smear campaign” Giuliani led against her. She was withdrawn from Ukraine in May.

The documents also included a report that appeared with Trump hotel stationery and seemed to summarize a 23 January interview with former Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Shokin at which Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman were present.

The CNN report about Nunes’ trip to Europe quoted the attorney Joseph A Bondy as saying Parnas was told by Shokin that he met the California Republican in Vienna last December. Nunes responded by telling the far-right Breitbart News website he would sue CNN and the Daily Beast, which reported on the same subject.

A second state department memo released on Friday appeared to summarize an interview with Yuri Lutsenko, another former prosecutor general of Ukraine, conducted in the presence of Giuliani, Parnas and Fruman. Lutsenko was quoted as raising questions about compensation Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, received from the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

There is no evidence either Hunter Biden or his father committed any wrongdoing related to Ukraine.

Speaking to Fox News on Saturday, Giuliani was asked about Parnas and Fruman.

“So they helped me find people,” he said, “and as I’ve said, they did a good job, but they weren’t investigators, and they weren’t James Bond, and they didn’t have personal communications with the president.”

Giuliani admitted introducing the men to Trump at a Hanukkah party in December 2018 – the subject of another CNN report – but said there was no extended conversation.

“They took a one-minute picture,” he said. “They walked away.”

CNN cited sources as saying Parnas said “the big guy”, meaning Trump, had “talked about tasking him and Fruman with what Parnas described as ‘a secret mission’ to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate” the Bidens.

Giuliani himself is being investigated by federal prosecutors in New York, over whether he failed to register as a foreign agent. On Fox News, the former mayor was asked if he was concerned about being indicted.

“Do you think I’m afraid?” he said. “Do you think I get afraid? I did the right thing. I represented my client in a very, very effective way. I was so effective that I discovered a pattern of corruption that the Washington press has been covering up for three or four years.”

Ivanka Trump defends father with fake impeachment quote
Giuliani has defied attempts to compel him to turn over documentation relevant to the impeachment inquiry. He has also appeared dramatically in public testimony, described as being involved in a political “drug deal” and as “a hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up”.

On Saturday he released a dramatic letter to the South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham, a key Trump ally, in which he claimed witnesses damaging to House Democrats’ case against Trump were being kept from coming to the US from Ukraine.

Giuliani told Fox he continues to have a good relationship with Trump, to whom he talks “early and often”. He also said he had seen it written that Trump was intending to throw him under the bus.

“When they say that, I say he isn’t, but I have insurance,” Giuliani said.

That was a repeat of a remark made to the Guardian, prompting his own lawyer to interject: “He’s joking.”

Later on Saturday, Giuliani returned to the subject on Twitter, writing that his remark was “sarcastic [and] relates to the files in my safe about the Biden Family’s [four-] decade monetizing of his office. If I disappear, it will appear immediately”.

Back to Top
carbon20 View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group

Joined: April 08 2006
Location: West Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 38546
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote carbon20 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: November 24 2019 at 2:04pm
The Atlantic: Radio Atlantic: Is Russia Winning the Impeachment Hearings?.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down