jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 6 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Already wrong. This began in 2017. Which you'd know if you bothered to look into any of the names and events I've already dropped. Biden's corruption DURING THE 2016 campaign has long been something Trump's demanded investigations into. The push for a quid pro quo began this May, following Zelinsky's election as president. You're right that Guiliani had been there for years though working on conspiracy theories.
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 15 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: And the fact that the VP publicly bragged about extorting the Ukrainian government to end it's investigation into corruption in that company. That'll be the real material benefit to Trump's campaign: when the 60+% or so of Americans who aren't raving progressive lunatics stop and ask "Wait...you're charging the current president with extortion for asking for an investigating the extortion of the previous VP?" 3
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: The push for a quid pro quo began this May, following Zelinsky's election as president. You're right that Guiliani had been there for years though working on conspiracy theories. You're wrong. Corruption in the Ukraine had been a focus, particularly their involvement in the 2016 election, since 2017. This is backed by voluminous amounts of evidence. The only way the case you're trying to push makes sense is if Trump was ONLY interested in the Ukraine because Biden was running against him. Biden hadn't announced in 2017, there was no talk of him running. Yet Trump was already pushing the Ukraine corruption issues. That destroys your entire case. Sorry. 1
Warren Zevon Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: You're right that Guiliani had been there for years though working on conspiracy theories. Keep in mind the two guys pushing the theories on Guiliani - Parnas and Fruman - have been arrested. This helps your entire case
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) his selective memory is laughable. twice in the same sentence, same text, he remembers one item but not another. there are no two ways about it here, his testimony can not be considered reliable. Edited November 20, 2019 by Foxx 3
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 ********************* More Alice in Wonderland language... nothing to see there ************* Trump spoke just now on his way out of town: 3
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: Uh oh.. Maybe it's Hillary! 1
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: You're wrong. Corruption in the Ukraine had been a focus, particularly their involvement in the 2016 election, since 2017. This is backed by voluminous amounts of evidence. The only way the case you're trying to push makes sense is if Trump was ONLY interested in the Ukraine because Biden was running against him. Biden hadn't announced in 2017, there was no talk of him running. Yet Trump was already pushing the Ukraine corruption issues. That destroys your entire case. Sorry. I'm not wrong about anything. I agree with your overall timeline. I'm saying the push for a quid pro quo started this spring after Zelinsky was elected president.
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Foxx said: his selective memory is laughable. twice in the same sentence, same text, he remembers one item but not another. there are no two ways about it here, his testimony can not be considered reliable. Again, he's obviously trying his best to not implicate himself in any crimes. 1
Tiberius Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 2 minutes ago, Gary Busey said: Keep in mind the two guys pushing the theories on Guiliani - Parnas and Fruman - have been arrested. Criminal enterprise pure and simple This is not how the USA does things. We Shall Overcome
TakeYouToTasker Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 1 hour ago, jrober38 said: Why would the people under oath lie about that? I'm sorry your whole world just came crashing down. Trump is going to be impeached. He broke laws, he extorted an ally at war with an enemy and he did it to benefit himself politically at home. Trump is absolutely finished. ... What? ... None of that is actually true. Not a single word. Your entire premise rests on the notion that people telling what are obvious lies, which is demonstrated in the released transcripts, are actually truth telling. The CIA tells you that Hunter Biden, a crackhead who has zero qualifications, is placed at a Ukrainian energy firm with a million dollar salary while his father is the Vice President; and his father tells the Ukrainian government to suspend an investigation into his son or the United States will withhold aid payments... that everything was on the up and up? That nothing untoward happened... and you believe them? An agency who’s main purpose is to destabilize and overthrow legitimate governments, and to install corrupt puppets who will keep their people impoverished in order to collect “US aid payments” they put in their own pockets after kickbacks are provided to those in power in the US, and to protect the elite power structures built on top of global banking and military-industrial interests to the detriment of the 8 billion people they hold in relative poverty and perpetually war? And you believe them? It couldn’t be that the current President is working to dismantle this network, and change foreign policy (which the primary source evidence indicates), and that the CIA is desperately fighting for it’s life in order to protect its own role in protecting the global elites? You are a stupid person. 4 1 2
DC Tom Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: I'm not wrong about anything. I agree with your overall timeline. I'm saying the push for a quid pro quo started this spring after Zelinsky was elected president. Foreign policy changed with the new head of state? The hell you say... 2 2
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, jrober38 said: I'm not wrong about anything. I agree with your overall timeline. I'm saying the push for a quid pro quo started this spring after Zelinsky was elected president. There was no quid pro quo. So you are wrong. The push for investigations into the Ukraine and 2016 predates Joe's candidacy by two years. That destroys your entire narrative. You'd understand this if you were able to look past your programming.
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 Just now, Deranged Rhino said: There was no quid pro quo. So you are wrong. The push for investigations into the Ukraine and 2016 predates Joe's candidacy by two years. That destroys your entire narrative. You'd understand this if you were able to look past your programming. So Sondland is lying? He's said probably 20 times today that there was a quid pro quo. No meeting without a public statement saying Ukraine was going to investigate Biden.
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: So Sondland is lying? He's said probably 20 times today that there was a quid pro quo. No meeting without a public statement saying Ukraine was going to investigate Biden. He said he PRESUMES it. He has no evidence to support it. None. It's a presumption on his part. Was the aid released? Yes. Was there an investigation launched? Nope. So there was no quid pro quo. 4
Foxx Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: So Sondland is lying? He's said probably 20 times today that there was a quid pro quo. No meeting without a public statement saying Ukraine was going to investigate Biden. he said, his interpretation. you do understand that others have an interpretation that there was no quid, right? 1
Deranged Rhino Posted November 20, 2019 Author Posted November 20, 2019 @jrober38 You're literally believing the same people who lied to you for three years about Trump/Russia. Honest question. At what point do you stop and question what they're telling you this time? Never? 2
jrober38 Posted November 20, 2019 Posted November 20, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Deranged Rhino said: He said he PRESUMES it. He has no evidence to support it. None. It's a presumption on his part. Was the aid released? Yes. Was there an investigation launched? Nope. So there was no quid pro quo. No. That's not what he's said. He said he's presumed the aide was tied to the quid pro quo, which was already in place regarding the trade of a meeting for the public announcement. He knew the quid pro quo was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they would investigate the Bidens. That's where 2 + 2 = 4 Are you really this dense? This is pretty straightforward at this point. 3 minutes ago, Foxx said: he said, his interpretation. you do understand that others have an interpretation that there was no quid, right? Are you guys even listening to what he's saying? The quid pro quo that Sondland KNOWS happened was trading a meeting at the White House for a public announcement that they were investigating the Bidens. He assumed the bit about the aide, but the quid pro quo was already in place. 2 (meeting at the White House) + 2 (military aide) = 4 (public announcement into Bidens) The bold parts, Sondland has said he knew happened. No guessing. Edited November 20, 2019 by jrober38
Recommended Posts