- Joined
- Sep 30, 2012
- Messages
- 5,335
- Reaction score
- 3,089
- Location
- Toronto
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
There is so much crying in this post... the mist is muddying up your point,.
I"m not surprised you can't put two and two together.
There is so much crying in this post... the mist is muddying up your point,.
technically true. nobody used the words quid pro quo. The PRESIDENT introduced the term in his conversation with sondland. It just vexes me that simple connect the dots analysis of the timeline, and the entirety of the activity going on within the administration as this disruptive, criminal domestic political errand was being run by a bevy of forever trumpers, including his personal lawyer.
The stink is overwhelming, but I also understand how becoming nose blind to it is the first line of emotional and intellectual defense of the indefensible.
Just because an investigation is opened does not mean that a person being investigated is guilty. This is the problem with partisan hack posts. Trump might be guilty, but then again maybe he made the 'no quid pro quo' statement after the investigation was opened to clear up that there was none from the beginning too... see, I am open and wait for the facts... you and people like you rush to judgement.
I gotta be honest, I'm getting tired of explaining that I was searching for a promised confession or proof and what I get - over and over I have tried to show that there is such a smarter way to get rid of the stain on the presidency and it just becomes repetitive and that is not your fault at all because you weren't on the other 30 conversations
We both want him out, I just want a successful route and note another failed hearing that pushes independents farther away
And another empty post..
So go ahead and keep playing. I'll just find someone who's actually capable of making a point somewhere else.
I"m not surprised you can't put two and two together.
twotwo
What do you want me to do next?
A confession? is that your standard of what is worthy of impeachment? You'd let him get away with thumbing his nose at the constitution and the laws of the land because he should be removed from office by "the people", except we know that "the people" (majority) don't actually elect the president or else he wouldn't have been president in the first place.
I believe most independents are smart enough to recognize the weasely obstruction and obfuscation trump and his cronies are shovelling.
I was struck by the scathing judgement on Trump's obstructive argument of "absolute immunity" in the recent mcgahn ruling. How any independent could read those words and not understand how intellectually and legally bankrupt such an argument is within the body of precedence of 200 years of constitutional jurisprudence, is truly beyond me.
(btw - rather witty if obvious response)
I see context isn't one of your strong points.
Trump did claim "no quid pro quo". He stated this OUT OF THE BLUE in response to the question "WTF was happening. He stated it the DAY AFTER SHIFF ANNOUNCES AN CONGRESSIONAL INVESTIGATION INTO THIS CLUSTERMUCK..
He says immigrants are ruining America. I say Fox News is ruining the GOP and ruining America... :lol:
I have some hope for the daytime Fox news folk. Not much for the evening commentators. And people like Carlson have been saying that immigrants are ruining America since the 1830s. Not to say Tucker is responsible, but it’s frightening when people like the El Paso shooter use similar language.
More importantly right after Sonland admits at that point he has no idea what Trump wants and has only been "hearing all these different ideas and theories".
These ideas and theories were nothing more than the characterization of those opposed to Trump.
EXcept there is no record of that call. Isn't that conveeeeeeeeeenient?
BTW, Sondland supposedly asked that, but in his other testimony AND corroborated by other's testimony - well before this supposed Sept 9 call, EVERYONE knew about trump's demands for a quid pro quo.
You mean all those who deny Sunlands claims?