Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
So according to the GOP
Nov 21, 2019, 8:09 AM
|
|
as long as I'm yelling "I'M NOT ROBBING THE STORE" as I take money out of the register and walk out of the door, I'm not actually robbing the store.
Got it.
Just because Trump is yelling NO QPQ doesn't mean it's not happening under his orders.
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119758]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54502
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Take a pill, please...***
Nov 21, 2019, 8:17 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Shouldn't you be out shooting sideway ninjas of foreign tail
Nov 21, 2019, 8:21 AM
|
|
GET THE FLOCK OUT OF HERE AND DO YOUR JOB!
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo?
Nov 21, 2019, 8:19 AM
|
|
Bring it forth.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
To quote your dear leader
Nov 21, 2019, 8:21 AM
|
|
READ THE TRANSCRIPT
Just because he doesn't say "I want a QPQ" doesn't mean that's not what it is.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That is not true.
Nov 21, 2019, 8:33 AM
|
|
If you're going to bribe someone you have to make it clear that you're offering something and that you want something in return. If you're going to blackmail someone you have to show them your evidence and tell them what you want to remain silent.
If you're going to extort someone you have...you get it. If you're offering 'this for that, QPQ, you have to tell them what you want and what you'll do or give to them to get it.
If you read any of that in the transcript it's because you're thinking with your hate not your reason.
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Re: That is not true.
Nov 21, 2019, 8:35 AM
|
|
I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
I would like you to do us a favor though
"Though"
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
I, CT88, would like you, FBC to do me a favor.
Nov 21, 2019, 8:17 PM
|
|
Kiss my asz. Is that a quid pro quo?
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30733
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Are you holding my paycheck until I do?***
Nov 22, 2019, 1:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Are you holding my paycheck until I do?***
Nov 22, 2019, 1:21 PM
|
|
Yes, you will not be paid unless you embarrass Memphis with a sex tape of him with a duck.
But it's not a quid pro quo. See? I just said it's not a quid pro quo so that makes it not one, in spite of what you clearly see.
Now, you gonna believe me or believe your lying eyes??
sincerely, Trump supporter
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20542]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11688
Joined: 10/15/02
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Mulvaney was hardly a confession
Nov 21, 2019, 3:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [321]
TigerPulse: 48%
Posts: 853
Joined: 1/8/09
|
Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession
Nov 21, 2019, 4:56 PM
|
|
Was Obama getting dirt against his possible political opponent No, Obama was trying to implement the stated foreign policy. (FYI, TheRump does not follow any foreign policy other than the rant that next enters his deranged mind. He's mentally sick. The recent pardons of war criminals should point that out to any thinking person. As well as, his overriding the Navy command on rank reduction for the war criminal.)
TheRump, on the other hand, was trying to improve his re-election enviroment.
And please Putin, at the same time...
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How was Obama just implementing stated foreign policy
Nov 21, 2019, 5:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [321]
TigerPulse: 48%
Posts: 853
Joined: 1/8/09
|
Re: How was Obama just implementing stated foreign policy
Nov 21, 2019, 7:50 PM
|
|
when Republicans controlled both chambers? Republicans are pro-Israel. Obama clearly had disagreements with Netanyahu over the Palestinians. That is why he withheld the delivery.
Yeah, how about Old Netanyahu, the indicted criminal. Another of TheRump's good friends that will be going to jail.
Obama probably believed the CIA. Now, there's a novel concept. (TheRump believes Putin more than the NSC, CIA, and FBI. TheRump owes his 2016 election to Russian money and hacking. Of course, you can choose to believe the Russians, if you want.)
|
|
|
|
|
Standout [321]
TigerPulse: 48%
Posts: 853
Joined: 1/8/09
|
Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession
Nov 21, 2019, 4:56 PM
[ in reply to Mulvaney was hardly a confession ] |
|
Was Obama getting dirt against his possible political opponent No, Obama was trying to implement the stated foreign policy. (FYI, TheRump does not follow any foreign policy other than the rant that next enters his deranged mind. He's mentally sick. The recent pardons of war criminals should point that out to any thinking person. As well as, his overriding the Navy command on rank reduction for the war criminal.)
TheRump, on the other hand, was trying to improve his re-election enviroment.
And please Putin, at the same time...
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession
Nov 21, 2019, 9:33 PM
|
|
It was precisely a confession. There would have been no need for him to try for days to walk it back.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
This might clear things up for you...
Nov 21, 2019, 5:10 PM
[ in reply to Mulvaney was hardly a confession ] |
|
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1197302892752986112.html
Okay, since the Republicans are going down this road, a quick explainer. GOP questioners are saying that the President has the right to hold up legally-approved aid. He does. But that's not what happened here. They're counting on their supporters being too stupid to know it. /1
The President can determine if a country has not met the legal conditions for providing aid. If Country X has a bad human rights record, and the aid says "on condition that Country X stop arresting dissidents," POTUS can choose to determine the conditions have not been met. /2
But those are *public* conditions in the aid package, usually made as a determination after interagency working groups have advised the President that Country X is or isn't in compliance with the conditions of the aid. Congress, if it disagrees, can query WH officials. /3
That is not this. In the Ukraine case, the executive branch officials (as Cooper is testifying now) determined that Ukraine had met the conditions attached to aid. Trump then added *secret* conditions through the Three Amigos that were purely to benefit *him*. /4
In other words, Ukraine had met the conditions specified when Congress passed the law to grant the aid, but Trump wanted his own set of conditions that amounted to a promise by the Ukrainian president to embarrass Joe Biden on U.S. national television. /5
In other words, Trump ignored the conditions set by the law, ignored his own experts, ignored U.S. national security requirements, and said: "None of this moves until Zelensky does this humiliating thing that benefits no one else in the world but me, personally." /6
This is soliciting a bribe...worse, *extorting* a country under attack by Russia, not a normal "hold" on aid. Every member of Congress in that room knows this. They *know* it. But they are counting on their viewers over on Fox not to know it. Hideous. /7x
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession
Nov 22, 2019, 1:11 PM
[ in reply to Mulvaney was hardly a confession ] |
|
Those two examples were official U.S. Foreign Policy, Obama didn't benefit personally.
Trumps efforts were to benefit him personally. His sole purpose was to smear a political opponent that he named directly to the Ukrainian President.
That is an invitation to a foreign govt to help him in his reelection campaign.
I'll stipulate that Obama wasn't a great President, but if you can't see the difference between those actions it's because you choose not to. That is certainly your right.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [15492]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18413
Joined: 12/10/14
|
Re: Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo?
Nov 21, 2019, 9:30 PM
[ in reply to Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo? ] |
|
Sondland made it clear that there absolutely was a quid pro quo. He did testify that trump said he didn't wan't anything from Russia and there isn't a quid pro quo, but Sondland testified that he '...didn't know if Trump was being truthful' and that he continues to believe there was a qpq.
Now, if his ambassador who worked closely with Trump during these events believes there was a quid pro quo, as everyone has testified too, then why do you have such a hard time believing it?
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6101]
TigerPulse: 85%
Posts: 10117
Joined: 11/1/11
|
Re: So according to the GOP
Nov 21, 2019, 8:20 AM
|
|
I think that would have been detected given the nonstop parade of tenured beuracrats that work with foreign affairs. So far it’s been half a day of lopsided democrat questioning to produce the media’s narrative, followed up at the tail end by the republican side who step in to expose the days witness testimony as hearsay.
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Everyone testified that their believe of QPQ was sourced..
Nov 21, 2019, 8:29 AM
|
|
from Sondland. Each and every one of the witnesses believe there was a QPQ because they heard it from someone who heard it from Sondland. Sondland used the terms 'I presumed and I believed,' dozens of times during the questioning while plainly stating that no one told him there was a QPQ. His only evidence was math, 2+2-4.
It was pointed out that 2 presumptions times 2 presumptions does not equal one piece of evidence. His testimony was the foundation of the entire impeachment proceedings.
Hearsay upon hearsay upon hearsay...
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97751]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64883
Joined: 7/13/02
|
Re: So according to the GOP
Nov 21, 2019, 8:20 AM
|
|
Think I might have to can this response.
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7210]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9446
Joined: 12/18/13
|
Re: So according to the GOP
Nov 21, 2019, 10:38 AM
|
|
In this scenario, someone just walked up to you and told you that someone had pressed the silent alarm and the cops are outside.
"I was actually just pointing the gun at you to show you how clean it is. Isn't this a perfect gun? I don't even want the money."
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93686]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95431
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Give evidence instead of supposition, presumption and...
Nov 21, 2019, 3:02 PM
|
|
opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
and he only said that after the whistleblower/investigations
Nov 21, 2019, 3:42 PM
|
|
the defenses of what Trump did are so freaking weak.
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard we hold for
Nov 21, 2019, 3:47 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Curious to what you think these "plausible defenses" are?***
Nov 21, 2019, 4:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [54]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I'd say witnesses with nothing but hearsay testimony
Nov 21, 2019, 4:15 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18026]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30158
Joined: 9/9/06
|
Vindman and Williams were on the call (first hand knowledge)
Nov 21, 2019, 5:04 PM
|
|
and characterized the call as inappropriate.
Volker, Morrison and Sondland testified that Giuliani was involved in asking Ukraine to investigate Biden and working on Trump's behalf. (This is backed up by the call summary where Trump says he's sending Giuliani)
Morrison testifies that looking into the Bidens was not a "policy objective" (goes to it was a personal objective by the President)
Volker testifies that Sondland brings up the Biden investigations and thought it was inappropriate (Sondland testifies that this was Giuliani's doing on the behalf of the president).
Sondland also says the White House meeting was a Quid Pro Quo with the investigations being the "quo." The "presumption" argument comes into play with the military aid being held up, yet, based on the call summary, that presumption seems proven correct by Trump's own words.
Today we have Hill testifying this:
<###### async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8">######>
This is backed up by all the other information we've learned. The republicans haven't put forth an explanation other than "Trump wanted to look into corruption" of why the quid pro quo was attempted. That defense doesn't hold water when vindman testified he created talking points that included mentioning corruption in Trump's first phone call with Zelensky. Trump never brings up corruption in the phone call. Trump doesn't bring up corruption in the 2nd phone call either but brings up investigating Biden/Crowdstrike in return for military aid.
These are the facts.
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10871]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12937
Joined: 4/18/12
|
I guess, the only way your analogy makes sense is
Nov 21, 2019, 9:35 PM
|
|
If the store owner watching you agrees that you’re not robbing the store. Kinda important no? LOL
|
|
|
|
Replies: 31
| visibility 1
|
|
|