jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: ... He said Trump never said that directly to him, and that he presumed it. Difference. But that requires you to be honest Wrong. 2 + 2 = 4 refers to withholding the aide. Sondland has said that he was aware that there was a quid pro quo for the meeting at the White House. He's since linked the two together, with 2 + 2 = 4 1 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: This isn't even remotely true. Everyone up until now has said they never heard directly it was a quid pro quo. None of them ever had any direct contact with Trump. Sondland had a direct line to Trump, and he has said that it was a quid pro quo. reading comprehension is your friend. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 But it's a conspiracy theory... Not posting for Beck. Posting for the clip he shares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Also, since this thread is moving fast, I dont like it that I reply and I can see Tibs posts even though hes on ignore, since we replied at the same time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, RochesterRob said: Family portrait of Tibs, Bob, and Gary Busey? You, Deranged and Foxx are they see no evil monkeys 1 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: Wrong. Not wrong. He testified repeatedly that Trump never said it directly to him. You claimed he did. You're wrong. But who's the one pushing falsehoods again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: Not wrong. He testified repeatedly that Trump never said it directly to him. You claimed he did. You're wrong. But who's the one pushing falsehoods again? No No No, 2 + 2 = 4 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 @jrober38 Ooops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 ●Sondland: ‘Was there a quid pro quo? The answer is yes.’ LOL, I don't know about a drug deal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in Mich Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said: EARMUFFS! I find your language offensive, or would if I did not swear like a longshoreperson myself. But a reminder that Tibsy, Busey and jrobers may all have a snow day today. Let’s put impeachable to the side for a moment, there seems to be ample evidence an objective person would be able to look at the political landscape right now and acknowledge there is no consensus there. As for “wrong”, are you asking if the overly simplistic fact pattern you outlined is morally wrong, wrong from a legal perspective and are you speaking in political terms? For instance, I thought it wrong that Trump inserted himself into the NFL controversy with players kneeling. I did not think it an impeachable offense. I also thought it wrong of Trump to make comments about John McCain as a POW, but given the political nature of the dispute between the two, McCains own pettiness and the fact that he was just another fat cat politician engorging himself at public trough, context was important to me. I would agree that if Trump was a Russian spy, working in the interests of the Russians, to destroy our country as suggested by many of your people, that would constitute an impeachable offense and I would consider it “wrong”. Consensus? If you are waiting for a Congressional consensus on anything, as you say in this political climate, you are going to wait forever. There is a lockstep backing of Trump by Repubs, regardless of Trump's actions. I meant wrong in the sense of was it right or wrong, morally or ethically? You can answer your own question as to right or wrong, but not mine? Interesting. How bout using that level of wrong in answering my question? I seriously doubt that many posters here would desert Trump even in the face of him being a proven Russian puppet. Why? Well of course they are so dug in that many are incapable of admitting they were wrong. The chief reason though is that, and I wish to stress this point, ANYONE CRITICAL OF TRUMP IS IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED BY TRUMP SUPPORTERS. We see that exact thing happen time and again. This makes it reasonable to assume any and all allegations against Trump are dismissed as fake news. 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: Not wrong. He testified repeatedly that Trump never said it directly to him. You claimed he did. You're wrong. But who's the one pushing falsehoods again? Sondland has said multiple times that the quid pro quo was no meeting without a public announcement that they would investigate Burisma. Did you miss that part? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Crayola64 said: Stop acting like his interpretation of the situation is not valuable evidence just because it isn’t direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence can be just as damning. people who attack the procedural aspects of evidence, and confuse it for substance, are sneaky His interpretation is valuable; it also conflicts with direct statements he's testified to hearing. And when your "crime" is "conspiring to bribe someone with money that you're accused of withholding from them for extortion," people's interpretations of that "crime" are already on shaky ground when compared to direct evidence, for the simple reason that that convoluted bull#### isn't any sort of definition of a crime. 4 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: Sondland has said multiple times that the quid pro quo was no meeting without a public announcement that they would investigate Burisma. Did you miss that part? 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. 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: @jrober38 Ooops. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 5 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: This seems to be your constant qualifier every time that you reappear down here. Serious question: why do you keep reappearing down here? Clearly the majority of posters here dont buy to any great extent what the MSM is selling. Do you expect that to change ever? Do you expect a single "Trump supporter" here to suddenly have an epiphany and start reading the Washington Post and/or tune into CNN/MSNBC and start buying into any of it? There is as much chance of that happening as there is of you actually reading any of the primary source documents that you've been directed to numerous times. It just isnt happening. I only ask because unlike many of the other posters from the "other side" down here you actually put some time and thought into your posts and dont seem to be here simply to troll. Seriously, why bother? Because I still have hope for all of you 2 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, Bob in Mich said: ANYONE CRITICAL OF TRUMP IS IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED BY TRUMP SUPPORTERS. Anyone who brings up a defense of the rule of law in regards to Trump is IMMEDIATELY DISCREDITED AS A TRUMP CULTIST, A NAZI, A RACIST, A PUTIN SUPPORTER -- since 2016. You've been had, Bob. All you have left is projection and your own delusional fantasies. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Oh Devon, if that were true you could have investigated yourself. Idiot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albwan Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said: Because I still have hope for all of you 1 minute ago, transplantbillsfan said: Because I still have hope for all of you Will you and Nancy pray for us? 1 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...
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: Sondland has said multiple times that the quid pro quo was no meeting without a public announcement that they would investigate Burisma. Did you miss that part? That's called formulating foreign policy. Jesus Christ...Trump refused to meet with the Taliban unless they publicly ceased suicide bombings. Should we impeach him for extorting the Taliban, too? You people are ***** insane. 5 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: That's called formulating foreign policy. Jesus Christ...Trump refused to meet with the Taliban unless they publicly ceased suicide bombings. Should we impeach him for extorting the Taliban, too? You people are ***** insane. No. It's called breaking the law. You can't extort a foreign government to investigate your political opponents. That's illegal. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts