Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » "Just wait until all the truth is out and testified to UNDER OATH. Then Republicans will have to admit what don did". Guess what?
RosieG

"Just wait until all the truth is out and testified to UNDER OATH. Then Republicans will have to admit what don did". Guess what?

We are there.

The truth all came out
The truthtellers testified in public UNDER OATH


Republicans don't care. They never did.

We did not count on that. We did not count on Americans having that little regard for truth and becoming so  intimate with and comforted by lies. So much so that lies is what we now realize succors them as the truth never will.

We did not know that that would be so. We banked on truth mattering enough to them for them to admit the don did wrong and should be removed. We banked on their humanity foolishly. You cannot make the horse you lead to water drink. It will die of thirst if that is its wish.

Posted - November 22, 2019
Tags : None

Responses


  • 46117
    I agree with EVERY WORD.  They don't care and we are in for a Hong Kong RIOT before this is over.  Wait and see.  
      November 22, 2019 8:47 AM MST
    1

  • 113301
    I know Sharon. Today I am depressed at he**! Can ya tell? After the STERLING testimony UNDER OATH of war hero and Purple Heart winner Lt. Col. Vindman testified and Fiona Hill yesterday I thought there'd be NO QUESTION. The crap continues on unabated and unsated. I never thought that such supremely honorable testimony would be vilified denied attacked. I give up. Mebbe tomorrow I will bounce back. Right now? What's the use what's the point? The dementia don a**kissers don't give a sh** about truth or right. They just don't.I thought there'd be a crack in the steel wall but there isn't. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday! :)
      November 22, 2019 10:02 AM MST
    0

  • 10718
    Only a very naive person would ever believe that any of these people care about oaths.  They lie 24/7 (even at home to their families).  In fact, there's not a politician (or the likes) anywhere who doesn't lie - even under "oath".  Kind of makes it hard to believe them about anything - even if are telling the truth.

    This post was edited by Shuhak at November 22, 2019 3:43 PM MST
      November 22, 2019 9:35 AM MST
    2

  • 113301
    I have full faith and confidence in purple heart war hero Lt. Col. Vindman and Fiona Hill. They were superb. I believe EVERY WORD they said. But it doesn't matter. The gibberish braindead dementia don cabal et al chatter today is as if it never happened. More lies more denials more bullsh**. So I give up. Truth that I hold dear they don't. They eviscerate it and vilify it and ridicule it. Thank you for your reply Shuhak and Happy Friday.
      November 22, 2019 10:06 AM MST
    2

  • 34758
    Did you catch went Dr Hill confirmed that some Ukrainian officials DID in fact attempt to interfere with US election in 2016?

    Fiona Hill: (01:05:04)
    Ukrainian government, again, they wouldn't have done very well at the [inaudible 00:32:11], I'm picking up the issue I pointed out at the beginning of today, they bet on the wrong horse.

    Fiona Hill: (01:05:15)
    They bet on Hillary Clinton winning the election. And so they were trying to carry favor with the Clinton campaign, it's quite evident here. And he relates to some extent, individuals and some Ukrainian officials like Mr. Avakov, the Interior Minister and a number of other people that he names here and that have been named at various points.

    ......
     So this is during the presidential campaign when President Trump was then the nominee for the Republican Party. And this is Ambassador Charlie who was then, still the Ukrainian ambassador to the United States being critical of President Trump, who was then the nominee for the Republican Party for making comments about Ukraine, Crimea and Russia.

    ..............many countries, including Ukraine, bet on the wrong horse. They believe that Secretary Clinton, former Senator Clinton, former First Lady Clinton was going to win. Many said some pretty disparaging and hurtful things about President Trump, and I can’t blame him for feeling aggrieved about them.


    (Bold added for my emphasis)
      November 22, 2019 1:17 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    I don't see how anything you just posted indicates the Ukranians did anything to interfere with the election.  Expressing their opinions of who they would have preferred to win the election or expressing their disdain for Trump does not rise to the level of election interference.  
      November 22, 2019 3:47 PM MST
    0

  • 34758
    Publishing articles and making public statements against one candidate over another is interfering. Does not matter how effective they were at it. They got in publically involved.  They also worked with DNC on dirt with the Steele dossier. 
    Were we not asked about "How a Trump presidency would cause loss of respect etc for USA?"  These type of public statements would be used to farther that narrative. 

    In Dec 2018, a Ukrainian court ruled that Ukrainian officals meddled in the 2016 election. 

    This does not mean that Russia did not also interfer, just that they were not alone.   I also do not believe Russia was that good at it either. No one has ever been able to show me one ad that would have swayed their vote. This post was edited by my2cents at November 22, 2019 4:47 PM MST
      November 22, 2019 4:42 PM MST
    0

  • 19937
    I disagree.  By your standards, you're saying that if I say something critical about Boris Johnson, I'm interfering in the election?  How ridiculous.
      November 22, 2019 7:42 PM MST
    0

  • 34758
    Whatever you wish to call it. Just know that exactly what the Rep have been claiming to have happen is not a Ukr conspiracy theory. Dr Hill testified to it as facts. 
    And the Ukraine courts ruled it as fact. 
      November 22, 2019 9:48 PM MST
    0

  • 7280
    In 2016, the Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. (Valeriy Chaly, I presume) wrote an opinion piece criticizing Mr. Trump’s comments that as president he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian, rather than Ukrainian.

    And to you, that constitutes interference in our presidential election.

    Hill, on the other hand, simply said it was "inadvisable."

    Sounds to me that was precogniscent rather than inadvisable.

    I thought people were entitled to their opinions---


      November 22, 2019 8:06 PM MST
    1

  • 34758
    Did I claim she called it interference? 

    I just showed that what others are claiming did not happen....Dr Hill verified did indeed happen.


      November 22, 2019 9:45 PM MST
    0

  • 7280

    When you told Spunky Senior "whatever you wish to call it" when she used the word interference, you accepted that characteristic of what happened as "interference."

    Can't sidestep this one to have it both ways.

      November 24, 2019 12:10 AM MST
    0

  • 34758
    Again call it what you want the point is the actioned happened. Unless you believe the Dr Hill perjured herself. And the Ukr courts ruled it was election meddling by their gov.  So again call it what you want but it is real, it happened amd it is not fake news or a conspiracy.
      November 24, 2019 6:06 AM MST
    0