Warren Zevon Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Mulvaney needs to testify 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 ************** Now it's a legal proceeding. After weeks of arguing otherwise. NPCs gonna NPC: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 what? Schifty is awarding himself additional time, again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I'm not defending Trump. I'm asking you to justify yourself. You're presuming an investigation into corruption with regards to Burisma is a material benefit to his political campaign because of Biden's involvement with Burisma, which is predicated on an assumption that Biden will be Trump's opponent in the general election (which is the only way it could materially benefit his campaign). For the sake of argument: if Warren wins the nomination, is this no longer an impeachable offense, because the material benefit to Trump's campaign would cease to exist? And conversely...is the only argument against investigating corruption in the Burisma investigation Biden's involvement with Burisma and the previous investigation? And if it is, isn't this current impeachment an exercise to materially benefit Biden's campaign? By shielding him from investigation into his conflict of interest (which conflict of interest, I hasten to point out, was reported as a conflict of interest by everybody from 2015 until April of 2019)? Point being not that Trump is innocent, or Biden is guilty...but that you - and specifically "you," as in "halfwitted buffoons just like yourself" - only judge this on your preconceived notions of the parties involved. Which is why DR's earlier post was relevant - given multiple instances of similar actions, you only judge the right and wrong of them by your preconceived notions of the parties involved, not what actually happened. Then claim you're not trying to have it both ways. So shut the ***** up, moron. Donald Trump is a guy who constantly shows that he cares about numbers, or ratings. He cares about TV Ratings, the stock market, his approval rating, etc. All of which are routinely referenced in press conferences and on his twitter feed. He understands that numbers are something everyone can understand, and he uses them often. At the time all of this began in May, Biden was the clear cut Democratic front runner. He was 10+ points ahead of any opponent in the polls, and seemed like there was a good chance he'd be Trump's opponent next year. I assume there was a reason Trump didn't go after other democratic candidates. I assume he went after Biden because someone he trusts told him Biden would likely be the candidate he'd face. Biden is the centrist candidate, and the US probably isn't ready for more radical ideas. Just because it might not materialize, doesn't necessarily mean he wouldn't receive anything of value from putting this quid pro quo together. Biden's campaign is finished. At this point I think he's been guilty by association. Something bad happened in Ukraine, and anyone associated with Ukraine is probably dead in the water politically in the US. Saying I'm not objective isn't true. I've posted over the past couple years I think Clinton should have been prosecuted. There was too much smoke there to not think something major happened. A proper investigation should have happened, but Clinton's political allies didn't let that happen which is very unfortunate. Trump is the President of the US. He's the most powerful person on Earth. Saying I don't care about other issues is false. I do care, I just care more about cleaning up the office of the Presidency which I think has been severely damaged over the past 3 years. Things need to be cleaned up and starting with the guy at the top would go a long way in doing that. It would warn all future office holders that this type of behaviour will not be tolerated. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: so his presumption wasnt even his own??? https://www.politico.com/amp/story/2019/08/28/trump-ukraine-military-aid-russia-1689531 This is the article. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Foxx said: you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: At the time all of this began in May, Biden was the clear cut Democratic front runner. Already wrong. This began in 2017. Which you'd know if you bothered to look into any of the names and events I've already dropped. Biden's corruption DURING THE 2016 campaign has long been something Trump's demanded investigations into. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Foxx said: what? Schifty is awarding himself additional time, again? So not fair, Trump must be innocent because of this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 12 minutes ago, Bob in Mich said: Lenny, you are clearly a much nicer person than many Trump supporters down here but just as obvious, you wear the same orange robe. Sorry buddy but that is as honest as can be. Second, no one has yet answered the question. To claim it was unclear or poorly framed is just as I said, horseshit. Enjoy your day. The question is poorly framed. That has not changed. I had a mentor once, a person I look up to in my field, and I called to get some feedback many years back. I opened with all the issues I had with the company we worked with, the delays, the confusion, whatever. I then asked for some feedback on team building and some of the concerns I had with the attitude of my team. To paraphrase, he replied "With due respect, great southern rocker, I listened to what you said and have to ask you: Have you considered how what you say and how you say it impacts your own team and the way they look at their day with you?". The interesting part about that experience was that to whatever extent I've been successful in life, my ability to read, interact and harmonize with people has been a big part of that success. I frequently encounter people with opposing views, listen respectfully and respond in kind. I'd suggest that part of your problem in this particular forum is due in part to your own limitations and bias. Heck, you even chose to make a point of contention on the factual, indisputable argument that Congress is divided on the impeachment issue. I didn't even point out the obvious: Congress is divided over the moral and ethical question of "wrong". I guess in the end, one man's horse**** is another man's innocent quest for clarity. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Tiberius said: nope, just making a pertinent observation is all. is this not what is happening? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: nope, just making a pertinent observation is all. is this not what is happening? Point taken. Foxx 1 Tibs 0 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Sondland is going to be low hanging fruit for SNL. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: He is unreliable but exonerates the POTUS Moron logic DR logic logic 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 48 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You said he heard it directly from Trump. He testified the opposite. You're wrong. Because you're an NPC who does not want to think for himself, but would rather believe what he's told by proven liars and manipulators. He also has conveniently said that Sondlund said the quid pro quo was about both the meeting and the aid when Sonlund pretty explicitly said the quid pro quo he believed was there was about the meeting and not the aid money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Uncle Joe said: Sondland is going to be low hanging fruit for SNL. Morrison is some pretty good competition, though. He has no idea why he ran to legal council after hearing the July 25th conversation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: ... again, pretty much everything i have been commenting here.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Like clockwork - BEANZ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Already wrong. This began in 2017. Which you'd know if you bothered to look into any of the names and events I've already dropped. Biden's corruption DURING THE 2016 campaign has long been something Trump's demanded investigations into. The push for a quid pro quo began this May, following Zelinsky's election as president. You're right that Guiliani had been there for years though working on conspiracy theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Uh oh.. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And the fact that the VP publicly bragged about extorting the Ukrainian government to end it's investigation into corruption in that company. That'll be the real material benefit to Trump's campaign: when the 60+% or so of Americans who aren't raving progressive lunatics stop and ask "Wait...you're charging the current president with extortion for asking for an investigating the extortion of the previous VP?" 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: The push for a quid pro quo began this May, following Zelinsky's election as president. You're right that Guiliani had been there for years though working on conspiracy theories. You're wrong. Corruption in the Ukraine had been a focus, particularly their involvement in the 2016 election, since 2017. This is backed by voluminous amounts of evidence. The only way the case you're trying to push makes sense is if Trump was ONLY interested in the Ukraine because Biden was running against him. Biden hadn't announced in 2017, there was no talk of him running. Yet Trump was already pushing the Ukraine corruption issues. That destroys your entire case. Sorry. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warren Zevon Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: You're right that Guiliani had been there for years though working on conspiracy theories. Keep in mind the two guys pushing the theories on Guiliani - Parnas and Fruman - have been arrested. This helps your entire case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) his selective memory is laughable. twice in the same sentence, same text, he remembers one item but not another. there are no two ways about it here, his testimony can not be considered reliable. Edited November 20, 2019 by Foxx 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 ********************* More Alice in Wonderland language... nothing to see there ************* Trump spoke just now on his way out of town: 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Uh oh.. Maybe it's Hillary! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're wrong. Corruption in the Ukraine had been a focus, particularly their involvement in the 2016 election, since 2017. This is backed by voluminous amounts of evidence. The only way the case you're trying to push makes sense is if Trump was ONLY interested in the Ukraine because Biden was running against him. Biden hadn't announced in 2017, there was no talk of him running. Yet Trump was already pushing the Ukraine corruption issues. That destroys your entire case. Sorry. I'm not wrong about anything. I agree with your overall timeline. I'm saying the push for a quid pro quo started this spring after Zelinsky was elected president. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Foxx said: his selective memory is laughable. twice in the same sentence, same text, he remembers one item but not another. there are no two ways about it here, his testimony can not be considered reliable. Again, he's obviously trying his best to not implicate himself in any crimes. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Keep in mind the two guys pushing the theories on Guiliani - Parnas and Fruman - have been arrested. Criminal enterprise pure and simple This is not how the USA does things. We Shall Overcome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, jrober38 said: Why would the people under oath lie about that? I'm sorry your whole world just came crashing down. Trump is going to be impeached. He broke laws, he extorted an ally at war with an enemy and he did it to benefit himself politically at home. Trump is absolutely finished. ... What? ... None of that is actually true. Not a single word. Your entire premise rests on the notion that people telling what are obvious lies, which is demonstrated in the released transcripts, are actually truth telling. The CIA tells you that Hunter Biden, a crackhead who has zero qualifications, is placed at a Ukrainian energy firm with a million dollar salary while his father is the Vice President; and his father tells the Ukrainian government to suspend an investigation into his son or the United States will withhold aid payments... that everything was on the up and up? That nothing untoward happened... and you believe them? An agency who’s main purpose is to destabilize and overthrow legitimate governments, and to install corrupt puppets who will keep their people impoverished in order to collect “US aid payments” they put in their own pockets after kickbacks are provided to those in power in the US, and to protect the elite power structures built on top of global banking and military-industrial interests to the detriment of the 8 billion people they hold in relative poverty and perpetually war? And you believe them? It couldn’t be that the current President is working to dismantle this network, and change foreign policy (which the primary source evidence indicates), and that the CIA is desperately fighting for it’s life in order to protect its own role in protecting the global elites? You are a stupid person. 4 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: I'm not wrong about anything. I agree with your overall timeline. I'm saying the push for a quid pro quo started this spring after Zelinsky was elected president. Foreign policy changed with the new head of state? The hell you say... 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: I'm not wrong about anything. I agree with your overall timeline. I'm saying the push for a quid pro quo started this spring after Zelinsky was elected president. There was no quid pro quo. So you are wrong. The push for investigations into the Ukraine and 2016 predates Joe's candidacy by two years. That destroys your entire narrative. You'd understand this if you were able to look past your programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: There was no quid pro quo. So you are wrong. The push for investigations into the Ukraine and 2016 predates Joe's candidacy by two years. That destroys your entire narrative. You'd understand this if you were able to look past your programming. So Sondland is lying? He's said probably 20 times today that there was a quid pro quo. No meeting without a public statement saying Ukraine was going to investigate Biden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: So Sondland is lying? He's said probably 20 times today that there was a quid pro quo. No meeting without a public statement saying Ukraine was going to investigate Biden. He said he PRESUMES it. He has no evidence to support it. None. It's a presumption on his part. Was the aid released? Yes. Was there an investigation launched? Nope. So there was no quid pro quo. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: So Sondland is lying? He's said probably 20 times today that there was a quid pro quo. No meeting without a public statement saying Ukraine was going to investigate Biden. he said, his interpretation. you do understand that others have an interpretation that there was no quid, right? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 @jrober38 You're literally believing the same people who lied to you for three years about Trump/Russia. Honest question. At what point do you stop and question what they're telling you this time? Never? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He said he PRESUMES it. He has no evidence to support it. None. It's a presumption on his part. Was the aid released? Yes. Was there an investigation launched? Nope. So there was no quid pro quo. No. That's not what he's said. He said he's presumed the aide was tied to the quid pro quo, which was already in place regarding the trade of a meeting for the public announcement. He knew the quid pro quo was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they would investigate the Bidens. That's where 2 + 2 = 4 Are you really this dense? This is pretty straightforward at this point. 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: he said, his interpretation. you do understand that others have an interpretation that there was no quid, right? Are you guys even listening to what he's saying? The quid pro quo that Sondland KNOWS happened was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they were investigating the Bidens. He assumed the bit about the aide, but the quid pro quo was already in place. 2 (meeting at the White House) + 2 (military aide) = 4 (public announcement into Bidens) The bold parts, Sondland has said he knew happened. No guessing. Edited November 20, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts