Fox calls white black.

[Bodi]

No, your video is not evidence that he did not want a quid pro quo.

This is not court. Hearsay is admissible and yes, that was evidence.

 

[JMR]

This is not court. Hearsay is admissible and yes, that was evidence.

Evidence introduced should have some semblance of truth. You are stating that Trump told a man he claims he really doesn't know at all what he wanted from Zelinsky ?

If you are quite willing to accept that evidence, I believe you should accept the rest of Sondland's testimony also.

 

[Bodi]

Evidence introduced should have some semblance of truth. You are stating that Trump told a man he claims he really doesn't know at all what he wanted from Zelinsky ?

If you are quite willing to accept that evidence, I believe you should accept the rest of Sondland's testimony also.

Sondland later contradicts his statement that Trump did not want a Quid Pro Quo?

 

[What if...?]

When he said "I want nothing. I want nothing. There is no quid pro quo. Tell Zelinsky to do the right thing." That time?

And what is "the right thing".?

 

[Oborosen]

View attachment 67268803

Thanks for posting a useless meme and running from actually supplying anything that might prove you correct.

I'm used to this kind of act from posters like you, however it is getting rather boring.

Then again, the meme is basically you projecting what it is you willingly practice. Seeing as I'm the one looking for multiple sources of input in this instance.

So the irony is still rather palatable in this case.

 

[The AntiDonald]

Thanks for posting a useless meme and running from actually supplying anything that might prove you correct.

I'm used to this kind of act from posters like you, however it is getting rather boring.

Then again, the meme is basically you projecting what it is you willingly practice. Seeing as I'm the one looking for multiple sources of input in this instance.

So the irony is still rather palatable in this case.

Perhaps you should consider the other 12 witnesses that testified before congress. Sondland was not the only one. Mulvaney admitted it on live TV and Trumps partial transcript describes it. Then look at everything else surrounding the whole Ukraine scandal including the fact that Rudy is about to be indicted and his thugs are already busted. There really is a lot to put together here. And then there are 4 or 5 people close to the scandal that refuse to testify. Why, they have nothing good to say about Trump. They can't defend it.

But if all you watch is Hannity, you'll never really know what's going on.

Then consider the judges ruling from 6 pm last night. She really hit the administration hard. This silly immunity BS just is not going to cut it. It's like a bunch of 5th graders working for the DOJ. They are arguing that the constitution means nothing. They are loosing.

 

[Oborosen]

Perhaps you should consider the other 12 witnesses that testified before congress. Sondland was not the only one. Mulvaney admitted it on live TV and Trumps partial transcript describes it. Then look at everything else surrounding the whole Ukraine scandal including the fact that Rudy is about to be indicted and his thugs are already busted. There really is a lot to put together here. And then there are 4 or 5 people close to the scandal that refuse to testify. Why, they have nothing good to say about Trump. They can't defend it.

But if all you watch is Hannity, you'll never really know what's going on.

Then consider the judges ruling from 6 pm last night. She really hit the administration hard. This silly immunity BS just is not going to cut it. It's like a bunch of 5th graders working for the DOJ. They are arguing that the constitution means nothing. They are loosing.

I did, and just because there are 12 witnesses. It doesn't mean that any of them had anything pertinent to actually say. Because even Sondland proved that there actually was no quid pro quo, and pointed out that such a notion was his assumption.

If they could actually supply proof of such a claim and not just their assumption of what was happening. Then we'd have something to work with at this point.

 

[COTO]

I dont think hearing both sides automatically means one is more informed.

It does in this case.

There isn't a sole major point raised thus far in this thread about something Mr. Sondland said--quoting him--that could be omitted from a fair and objective analysis of his testimony. Some of those quotes strengthen the case against Pres. Trump; some of them hurt the case against him.

It's possible CNN, FOX, or both included every single one of these points in their own analyses, but knowing how they operate, I doubt it.

 

[Jonsa]

Wasn't Fox, it was Sondland. In his prepared statement he said there was a quid pro quo but during testimony when asked directly he said no.

he did not say no there was no quid pro quo. He said he didn't hear it from Trump directly but as he said "EVERYONE KNEW".

Keep spinnin' it doesn't change the facts.

 

[Jonsa]

Who is lying... the one saying there was quid pro quo or the one saying there was not?

You posting this picture means nothing... where is the actual quote from Sondland?

Let's see what Sondland REALLY SAYS>>> IN HIS OWN WORDS.




Damn, don't you guys feel stupid now?!! :lol:

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.

|Timing is everything and ascribing some sort of altruism on trump's part that he was merely wanting to combat corruption in a foreign land but not his own.

But I totally understand how cherry picking out of context quotes is part of the lifeblood of trumpian defense. Can't possibly be because he's a cretinous lyin' crook himssownself.

Too bad trumpians can't run down to the local wallymart and pick up a pack of critical thinking skills.

 

[Jonsa]

NOPE, fact. Given your stunning and erudite posting style I don't think it's worth my time to prove it to you however. And that's no BULL****.

Of course it isn't worth your time, because why waste it trying to defend the indefensible when you can scurry away from the facts and truth.

I totally understand that when ya got nuthin' ya gotta thrash.

 

[Jonsa]

Of the two cyrons, Tucker's is the more accurate. Scondland did say there was a quid pro quo. It was a lie; he recanted under cross. It was an intentional lie design specifically to generate the fabricated narrative on complicit media.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

NO he did not recant under cross. He recounted how trump PROACTIVELY declared no quid pro quo in response to a direct question from sondland about what was going on. He did this the Day after Shiff announced an investigation.

It may be that many trumpians are not capable of following a time line or applying common knowledge of human behavior when it comes to their dear leader. How they can defend his credibility when he lies to EVERYONE ALL THE TIME is a real poser. Cult like devotion to a corrupt political figure harks back 80 years ago.

 

[Keridan]

NO he did not recant under cross. He recounted how trump PROACTIVELY declared no quid pro quo in response to a direct question from sondland about what was going on. He did this the Day after Shiff announced an investigation.

It may be that many trumpians are not capable of following a time line or applying common knowledge of human behavior when it comes to their dear leader. How they can defend his credibility when he lies to EVERYONE ALL THE TIME is a real poser. Cult like devotion to a corrupt political figure harks back 80 years ago.

This just vexes me - how does "no one on the entire planet ever told you there was quid pro quo?" "Yes" not mean more than just Trump made some statement about not having it? It's not like it was left to interpretation or loopholes

 

[Jonsa]

Thanks for posting a useless meme and running from actually supplying anything that might prove you correct.

I'm used to this kind of act from posters like you, however it is getting rather boring.

Then again, the meme is basically you projecting what it is you willingly practice. Seeing as I'm the one looking for multiple sources of input in this instance.

So the irony is still rather palatable in this case.

I see that such sarcasm is lost on those oblivious to their own foibles. And I must say you do snooty condescension rather well - ya get lot of practice?

As for the facts. I get how "technically true" is a useful spin feature, but it isn't practically true. I get how literal semantic interpretation without context is an effective rebuttal tool when ya got nuthin'. I get how ignoring human nature when applied to the Dear Leader's character and actions is necessary to maintain the fiction of his greatness. I get how denial, whining, obfuscation, deflection and wild arsed tangential accusations are the main trumpian defense mechanisms.


So in closing I totally agree the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Quite an accomplishment - you should be proud.

 

[Bodi]

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.

|Timing is everything and ascribing some sort of altruism on trump's part that he was merely wanting to combat corruption in a foreign land but not his own.

But I totally understand how cherry picking out of context quotes is part of the lifeblood of trumpian defense. Can't possibly be because he's a cretinous lyin' crook himssownself.

Too bad trumpians can't run down to the local wallymart and pick up a pack of critical thinking skills.

There is so much crying in this post... the mist is muddying up your point,.

 

[Bodi]

NO he did not recant under cross. He recounted how trump PROACTIVELY declared no quid pro quo in response to a direct question from sondland about what was going on. He did this the Day after Shiff announced an investigation.

It may be that many trumpians are not capable of following a time line or applying common knowledge of human behavior when it comes to their dear leader. How they can defend his credibility when he lies to EVERYONE ALL THE TIME is a real poser. Cult like devotion to a corrupt political figure harks back 80 years ago.

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.

 

[JMR]

Sondland later contradicts his statement that Trump did not want a Quid Pro Quo?

Sondland never stated that Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

 

[JMR]

And what is "the right thing".?

I would imagine the right thing is announce publicly an investigation of the Bidens...admitting the quid pro quo.

 

[Bodi]

Sondland never stated that Trump did not want a quid pro quo.

I posted a video of him saying that he did...

 

[JMR]

I posted a video of him saying that he did...

You posted a video of him saying that Trump "said" he did not want a quid pro quo. Followed by " tell Zelensky to do the right thing."

 

[SheWolf]

Apparently there is no shame in trumpville tonight,

When the fox opinion clowns outright lie to their audience with righteous indignation. There is bias and then there is outright friggin lying. Seems tucker and the gang have no problems with it.

View attachment 67268627

Everybody says Fox is state run television right now. We all know when a Democrat is in office again, they will blast the president for every little stupid thing. It's amazing that so many Americans take Fox News seriously. I would say their conduct has gotten worse, much worse. It was bad when they cheered GWB till the very end, cheered the war, failed to do real reporting, but now, anybody who thinks Fox is real news and not a mouthpiece for the extreme right has their head up their ass.

 

[SheWolf]

What do you expect from Friar Tucker?

He says immigrants are ruining America. I say Fox News is ruining the GOP and ruining America... :lol:

 

[AProudLefty]

He says immigrants are ruining America. I say Fox News is ruining the GOP and ruining America... :lol:

The funny thing is that they don't realize it. It's scary really.

 

[Oborosen]

I see that such sarcasm is lost on those oblivious to their own foibles. And I must say you do snooty condescension rather well - ya get lot of practice?

As for the facts. I get how "technically true" is a useful spin feature, but it isn't practically true. I get how literal semantic interpretation without context is an effective rebuttal tool when ya got nuthin'. I get how ignoring human nature when applied to the Dear Leader's character and actions is necessary to maintain the fiction of his greatness. I get how denial, whining, obfuscation, deflection and wild arsed tangential accusations are the main trumpian defense mechanisms.


So in closing I totally agree the irony is thick enough to cut with a knife. Quite an accomplishment - you should be proud.

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.

 

[Jonsa]

This just vexes me - how does "no one on the entire planet ever told you there was quid pro quo?" "Yes" not mean more than just Trump made some statement about not having it? It's not like it was left to interpretation or loopholes

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.