DC Tom Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, jrober38 said: SONDLAND WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH A DIRECT LINE TO THE PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!! JESUS CHRIST Of all the NSC people on the call, and all the State Department officials involved in Ukraine policy, the EU ambassador was the only one with a direct line to the President? By all means, die on this hill. I'll get popcorn. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Sondland said there are texts, emails, etc, but he has no access to them. He also kept zero notes. And this was denied by the State Department immediately, DURING the testimony. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You weren't down here in the early days of 2016's election -- but I've had the chance to spend time with him in person. He's a robot. If I didn't find it hilarious, I'd buy into Tom's "WAKE UP SHEEPLE" clone theory only because I've seen Schiff first hand try to have a "human" conversation. It reminded me of the congressman from this ep of Parks and Rec (if you've ever seen it) https://www.nbc.com/parks-and-recreation/video/sex-education/n27949 it follows the pattern of a theory I have. That a large percentage of politicians were/are outcasts starting from a young age. They pursued a career of power and importance in an effort to compensate for their social shortcomings. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snafu Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 8 minutes ago, jrober38 said: No one else has said Trump didn't say it. They just said they never heard it directly. Everyone should listen to Sondland's opening statement. He openly says that there was a quid pro quo. Maybe I’m getting this wrong. Are you saying that (1) nobody heard Trump directly say that there was no quid pro quo, AND (2) nobody heard Trump say there wasn’t a quid pro quo? And “(2)” is more relevant than “(1)”? Also, you say Sondland testifies that the quo was a BIDEN investigation, but didn’t Sondland say a BURISMA investigation? And finally, you’ve said a couple times that what happened amounted to extortion, but you’re talking about a meeting in the White House. Serious question: Am I getting these things right? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, billsfan89 said: It is illegal to break campaign finance laws. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121 Well, at least this is new. Bribery/extortion/quid pro quo as a campaign finance violation. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: Of all the NSC people on the call, and all the State Department officials involved in Ukraine policy, the EU ambassador was the only one with a direct line to the President? By all means, die on this hill. I'll get popcorn. Oh my god. None of the other guys with a direct line to Trump have agreed to talk. I WONDER WHY????? LMAO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, snafu said: Maybe I’m getting this wrong. Are you saying that (1) nobody heard Trump directly say that there was no quid pro quo, AND (2) nobody heard Trump say there wasn’t a quid pro quo? And “(2)” is more relevant than “(1)”? Also, you say Sondland testifies that the quo was a BIDEN investigation, but didn’t Sondland say a BURISMA investigation? And finally, you’ve said a couple times that what happened amounted to extortion, but you’re talking about a meeting in the White House. Serious question: Am I getting these things right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 3 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: It is illegal to break campaign finance laws. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121 News flash. The "rule of law" guys don't actually give a damn about the rule of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Sondland said there are texts, emails, etc, but he has no access to them. He also kept zero notes. Again, did you even watch today? They got caught. Literally everything happened a month or more after the whistle blower complaint was filed and they tried to cover their ass. Is that the same no access which the state department said was not true today? I'm starting to think maybe you're the one who didn't watch today. Maybe, just maybe, you're regurgitating what you're told to believe. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Oh my god. None of the other guys with a direct line to Trump have agreed to talk. I WONDER WHY????? LMAO I'll take: Things Stalinists argue for $100, Alex. 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Oh my god. None of the other guys with a direct line to Trump have agreed to talk. I WONDER WHY????? LMAO Let me guess. Because they'd perjure themselves by testifying Trump told them it wasn't a quid pro quo, when everyone knows it was a quid pro quo. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 6 minutes ago, DC Tom said: Well, at least this is new. Bribery/extortion/quid pro quo as a campaign finance violation. You could receive something via bribery so it is nothing new. I think you are working backwards from your conclusions to defend an imbecile. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 4 minutes ago, jrober38 said: News flash. The "rule of law" guys don't actually give a damn about the rule of law. You can't even decide if it was extortion, bribery, or a not-illegal "quid pro quo." The only thing you have decided is that it's not valid foreign policy...but you can't explain why. You can't explain how the law was broken, but you expect everyone to agree with you nonetheless. The "rule of law" crowd is laughing at you precisely BECAUSE they believe in the rule of law, and know you ain't it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, billsfan89 said: You could receive something via bribery so it is nothing new. I think you are working backwards from your conclusions to defend an imbecile. If you think Tom is defending Trump, you should read more of his stuff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, DC Tom said: You can't even decide if it was extortion, bribery, or a not-illegal "quid pro quo." The only thing you have decided is that it's not valid foreign policy...but you can't explain why. You can't explain how the law was broken, but you expect everyone to agree with you nonetheless. The "rule of law" crowd is laughing at you precisely BECAUSE they believe in the rule of law, and know you ain't it. He broke campaign finance laws. He solicited something of value from a foreign power, which is ILLEGAL. You just refuse to accept that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said: If you think Tom is defending Trump, you should read more of his stuff. They don't call him Tommy Trumpkin for nothing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, billsfan89 said: You could receive something via bribery so it is nothing new. I think you are working backwards from your conclusions to defend an imbecile. I've been waiting two months for someone to even define the crime. Again: make the distinction between foreign policy and campaign violation. Do it without making the claim that just because someone is running for office, they are immune from investigation. I'm not defending anyone. There hasn't yet been a coherent accusation made to defend anyone against. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted November 21, 2019 Author Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, jrober38 said: He broke campaign finance laws. He solicited something of value from a foreign power, which is ILLEGAL. You just refuse to accept that. Investigating corruption in Ukraine, especially that involving the 2016 election, is entirely appropriate and within his scope as POTUS. The only way this argument holds water is if you take the position that any investigation which might involve a person running for office is verboten. Clearly, you don't agree with that position. Or else you would have had the same stance on the FBI's Trump investigation during the 2016 election... right? Edited November 21, 2019 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: He broke campaign finance laws. He solicited something of value from a foreign power, which is ILLEGAL. You just refuse to accept that. He solicitred? I thought this was a quid pro quo. Or extortion. Or bribery. Now it's solicitation? We're back to extortion again? What happened to quid pro quo? Or let me put this more simply: it's not a campaign finance violation to offer to pay for a service. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, DC Tom said: I've been waiting two months for someone to even define the crime. Again: make the distinction between foreign policy and campaign violation. Do it without making the claim that just because someone is running for office, they are immune from investigation. I'm not defending anyone. There hasn't yet been a coherent accusation made to defend anyone against. Someone isn't immune from prosecution because they are running against them, no one is defending Biden on my end. But you can't extort a foreign power to do an investigation that would help you politically. That is a violation of the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts