Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: You obviously can't read, or you're selective choosing to ignore that Sondland has said numerous times that the quid pro quo he was aware of involved trading a White House meeting for a public announcement into the Bidens. He never said Trump told him directly those were linked. Which is what I've been saying and you've been arguing. Poorly. You're wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 lol, Schifty is crashing hard here. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 10 minutes ago, Foxx said: he said, his interpretation. you do understand that others have an interpretation that there was no quid, right? No. Others were just not told there was a quid pro quo. They didn't have access to Trump or Guiliani like Sondland had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Yes. That's illegal. It's a campaign finance violation. Quote me the law you say he broke please 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Bray Wyatt said: Quote me the law you say he broke please you can stop babysitting this person's mind whenever you wish 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: You obviously can't read, or you're selective choosing to ignore that Sondland has said numerous times that the quid pro quo he was aware of involved trading a White House meeting for a public announcement into the Bidens. He's just playing dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 3 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: No. Others were just not told there was a quid pro quo. They didn't have access to Trump or Guiliani like Sondland had. oye. did you miss last nights hearings? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Foxx said: oye. did you miss last nights hearings? he can't read, think or hear(ing) either "I have acute hearing: not interested in your jewelry clotheyes...." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, row_33 said: he can't read, think or hear(ing) either "I have acute hearing: not interested in your jewelry clotheyes...." "You mean you only hear what you want to hear? Thanks I like to wear it short this time of year" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 4 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: Quote me the law you say he broke please https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: oye. did you miss last nights hearings? The hearings from the guys who never spoke to Trump directly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20 So where are the funds involved or the thing of value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS 'The answer is yes': Sondland affirms 'quid pro quo' in Ukraine dealings “Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret,” he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, Bray Wyatt said: "You mean you only hear what you want to hear? Thanks I like to wear it short this time of year" nowhere man, can't y'all see me at all, dude? Sonderland pinned with covering up an exculpatory fact, should be bounced right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 Uh oh... 6 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, jrober38 said: https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20 The hearings from the guys who never spoke to Trump directly? again, Sondland said Trump never called for a quid pro quo directly. are you being intentionally obtuse here? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Bray Wyatt said: So where are the funds involved or the thing of value? Doesn't have to be funds. Just has to be something of "value". For example, if Zelinsky asked his justice department to investigate Biden or Burisma, and doing that cost any amount of money, that would be an example of value. It's all really easy to follow. Just read the link. Sections B, F and G were all violated. Edited November 20, 2019 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 11 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Schiff just now: "33 minutes" 33... 15 + 15 = 33 Duh 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hedge Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 25 minutes ago, Foxx said: it is my hope that regardless of the outcome here... whether Trump gets removed from office via impeachment or loses the election... the horse has left the barn. the issue of the deep state and their graft (in all of it's manifestations) of the American public is now within the public's mind's eye. as such, removing Trump is not going to matter, they are now living on borrowed time. the collective unconscious is leaking, you will not be able to stop it at this point. That is my hope as well. I have doubts that would actually happen, however. I think that the average American, regardless of political affiliation, knows that there are a large number of politicians and extremely wealthy individuals who are corrupt (although not knowing the depth of this corruption). They have seen the elite get special treatment and not have the rule of law applied to their transgressions. The two tiered justice system is ingrained at this point. That's just life in America, where the elite can do whatever they please, for the most part. Business as usual...life goes on, because it does not affect them on the immediately noticed personal level. If President Trump loses the election, the toothpaste doesn't get put back in the tube, because *Jedi mind tricks* there was never any toothpaste to begin with, you were imagining things and/or being lied to by corrupt, traitorous Republicans. The mockingbird media remains complicit and not enough people have the inclination, time, or interest to put forth the effort required to seek the truth from independent outlets...until it affects them on a personal level. There would still be a small community of those trying to rip the curtain back (like there always has been), but even that may dwindle from it's current size when efforts lead to lackluster results that get swept under the rug (like it always has been). I hope I don't get a chance to test my hypothesis. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts