Tiger Board Logo

Donor's Den General Leaderboards TNET coins™ POTD Hall of Fame Map FAQ
GIVE AN AWARD
Use your TNET coins™ to grant this post a special award!

W
50
Big Brain
90
Love it!
100
Cheers
100
Helpful
100
Made Me Smile
100
Great Idea!
150
Mind Blown
150
Caring
200
Flammable
200
Hear ye, hear ye
200
Bravo
250
Nom Nom Nom
250
Take My Coins
500
Ooo, Shiny!
700
Treasured Post!
1000

YOUR BALANCE
So according to the GOP
storage This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic
Replies: 31
| visibility 1

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.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


Take a pill, please...***


Nov 21, 2019, 8:17 AM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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!

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo?


Nov 21, 2019, 8:19 AM

Bring it forth.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


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.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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"

2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


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?

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Are you holding my paycheck until I do?***


Nov 22, 2019, 1:13 PM



2024 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I like your funny words magic man


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

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Re: Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo?


Nov 21, 2019, 12:33 PM [ in reply to Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo? ]

Well, gosh, that's a tough one.

Oh, wait.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Q67tAUiMg


After that, it was pretty much game, set, and match. But just to dig the hole even deeper along came (acting!) White House Chief of Staff Mulvaney stepping completely in it a few days later:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brFcfOXjVo

That's called a "confession".

Everything after that is just politics...and outright lies.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Mulvaney was hardly a confession


Nov 21, 2019, 3:16 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession


Nov 21, 2019, 4:56 PM

T3Tiger said:

He was speaking reality. Policy does change from administration from administration and politics are always involved in policy.

Obama cancelled an order of 20 F-35's by Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/barak-claims-tense-netanyahu-obama-relations-scuttled-gift-of-free-f-35s/


Obama cancelled military supplies and $260 million in cash aid to Egypt because the US was unhappy with democracy and human rights conditions there.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/us-withholds-part-of-major-aid-package-for-egypt-1.1556124

Is he the only one allowed to do that?


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...

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

How was Obama just implementing stated foreign policy


Nov 21, 2019, 5:01 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: How was Obama just implementing stated foreign policy


Nov 21, 2019, 7:50 PM

T3Tiger said:

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.)

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession


Nov 21, 2019, 4:56 PM [ in reply to Mulvaney was hardly a confession ]

T3Tiger said:

He was speaking reality. Policy does change from administration from administration and politics are always involved in policy.

Obama cancelled an order of 20 F-35's by Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/barak-claims-tense-netanyahu-obama-relations-scuttled-gift-of-free-f-35s/


Obama cancelled military supplies and $260 million in cash aid to Egypt because the US was unhappy with democracy and human rights conditions there.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/us-withholds-part-of-major-aid-package-for-egypt-1.1556124

Is he the only one allowed to do that?


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...

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: Mulvaney was hardly a confession


Nov 22, 2019, 1:11 PM [ in reply to Mulvaney was hardly a confession ]

T3Tiger said:

He was speaking reality. Policy does change from administration from administration and politics are always involved in policy.

Obama cancelled an order of 20 F-35's by Israel.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/barak-claims-tense-netanyahu-obama-relations-scuttled-gift-of-free-f-35s/


Obama cancelled military supplies and $260 million in cash aid to Egypt because the US was unhappy with democracy and human rights conditions there.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/africa/us-withholds-part-of-major-aid-package-for-egypt-1.1556124

Is he the only one allowed to do that?


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.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


Why wasn't that part of the impeachment inquiry?


Nov 21, 2019, 8:20 PM [ in reply to Re: Where's the evidence that he wanted a quid pro quo? ]

Because it's not evidence.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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?

badge-donor-05yr.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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...

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Re: So according to the GOP


Nov 21, 2019, 8:20 AM

Think I might have to can this response.




2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpgringofhonor-tiggity-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up


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."

military_donation.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Give evidence instead of supposition, presumption and...


Nov 21, 2019, 3:02 PM

opinion.

2024 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpgringofhonor-clemsontiger1988-110.jpg flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Beyond a reasonable doubt is the standard we hold for


Nov 21, 2019, 3:47 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Curious to what you think these "plausible defenses" are?***


Nov 21, 2019, 4:11 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

I'd say witnesses with nothing but hearsay testimony


Nov 21, 2019, 4:15 PM



flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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.

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

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

flag link military_tech thumb_downthumb_up

Replies: 31
| visibility 1
Archives - General Boards Archive
add New Topic