Ken Starr on Sondland testimony: It's over

[Condor060]

Either read who i quoted or you could just piss off.

I did. Starr recanted his statement later after Sondland stated his accusations were his presumptions.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

Do you need a link where Sondland stated his accusations were only his presumptions? What a joke

So you're saying that Sondland misunderstood Trump and pressured Zelensky to make that statement because he misunderstood Trump? The aid suspension was a coincidence? The aid release after the whistleblower blew up the scam another coincidence?

All you're doing is proving you are intellectually dishonest and should not be taken seriously. You're making an absurd argument.

 

[What if...?]

So you didn't actually watch the hearings?

Here ya go. Its only 1 minute long.

One minute.

One could certainly find one minute that sounds good to the defendant in every trial that they lost.

Y'all just better hope nobody hears that who watched the whole thing.

 

[Condor060]

So you're saying that Sondland misunderstood Trump and pressured Zelensky to make that statement because he misunderstood Trump? The aid suspension was a coincidence? The aid release after the whistleblower blew up the scam another coincidence?

All you're doing is proving you are intellectually dishonest and should not be taken seriously. You're making an absurd argument.

Looks like you are the only one being dishonest.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I did. Starr recanted his statement later after Sondland stated his accusations were his presumptions.

Let me illustrate the absurdity of the "presumption" argument.

Hitman testifies that mob boss asked him to kill the witness.

Defense Attorney: Did the boss actually say, "I want to you to kill the witness"
Hitman: No, he asked me to take care of it.
Defense Attorney: So you presumed that's what he meant?

Absurd argument intended for dumb people.

Criminals rarely explicitly state what they want done.

 

[Condor060]

One minute.

One could certainly find one minute that sounds good to the defendant in every trial that they lost.

Y'all just better hope nobody hears that who watched the whole thing.

Stating everything you are testifying to is your own presumption and not what you were actually told is one hell of a minute. Would you like another video of Republicans digging even deeper? It only gets worse.

 

[VanceMack]

:lamo

You people are so eager to kick yourselves in the balls you couldnt even get Starrs FIRST comment right, let alone his comment after the GOP congressmen had him reveal that there was in fact no QPQ, no bribery...and that everything he had to offer was pure speculation.


Starr did NOT say it was 'over'. Starr said: “Substantively, what we heard from the Chairman just now is ‘it’s over,’ I mean this is his position, ‘we now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery’”

Starr didnt flip flop. He didnt change his mind.

You folk have been kicking your own ass over stuff like this for three years.

 

[Condor060]

Let me illustrate the absurdity of the "presumption" argument.

Hitman testifies that mob boss asked him to kill the witness.

Defense Attorney: Did the boss actually say, "I want to you to kill the witness"
Hitman: No, he asked me to take care of it.
Defense Attorney: So you presumed that's what he meant?

Absurd argument intended for dumb people.

Criminals rarely explicitly state what they want done.

That isn't even close to what happened but lets use your theory, shall we?

Defense attorney: Did the boss actually say, "I want to you to kill the witness"
Hitman: No
Defense attorney: Did he say anything about killing anyone
Hitman: No
Defense attorney: Did one of his employees tell you he wanted you to kill someone
Hitman: No
Defense attorney: Did anyone ask you to kill anyone
Hitman: No, I just presumed he wanted the person killed because Bill said that Terry said that John said he didn't like that person

Now you have the actual events taking place.

 

[Roadvirus]

So you decided to leave out the part that Sondland stated his accusations were only his presumptions? How funny is that.

Funny? Naw...that's typical.

 

[trouble13]

Ken Starr on the Sondland testimony: 'It's over'



Reality is going to be crashing into our resident Trump propaganda repeaters shortly.

Going to be a tough couple months for them.

Just admit it already. You're making fools of yourselves.

There's honest arguments to make but, those ones don't include a denial that Trump did what the WB initially alleged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Im glad you acknowledge theres legitimate disagreements. I wont dispatge anyone for disagreeing with a position if i believe they come from an earnest place. Hill offered him opinion today and she made a compelling case, i simply dont agree with her, nor do i agree with starrs assement.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Winston]

Sondland crashed and burned with his very own words, and know even the democrats are questioning his integrity because he didn't pan out for them.

Good luck at the Senate vote.

The Sondland testimony was devastating to the Republican defense. They have no argument left but to lie about what he said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Airyaman]

Just googled it.

Starr apparently did a total 180 this morning.

So, Trump was correct Starr is saying the exact opposite today.

Lol.

I'm just picturing Lou Dobbs and Hannity tying him up and beating the covfefe out of him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, they probably told him that his contributor contract was about to be torn up...Starr needs the cash.

 

[Casper]

Does that mean that he cashed the bribe check from Trump backers and as such the facts changed?

And purjured himself.....so lying before the Congressional Committee or now, always fun. Strange thing most other witnesses say he was right the first time

 

[jnug]

So is it not now obvious that virtually the entire guest legal squad at Fox, Degenova, Dersh and Starr are complete garbage, easily manipulated and without any value other than ENTERTAINMENT!

 

[OscarLevant]

Laughable. He had no knowledge of anything. He was only presuming his accusations. That isn't even in the same world as a presumptive nominee. Where in the hell do you come up with this junk?

Where did you leave your brain? Nine credible testimonies, all say the same thing. I suppose you think everyone is making **** up, deep state out to get Trump, etc.

You are conflating "presume" with "assume".

People are convicted of MURDER with less evidence than has been given, just ask any criminal lawyer, this is an airtight case, and you righties are just revealing your ignorance of such things.

You guys are lost.

 

[OscarLevant]

That isn't even close to what happened but lets use your theory, shall we?

Defense attorney: Did the boss actually say, "I want to you to kill the witness"
Hitman: No
Defense attorney: Did he say anything about killing anyone
Hitman: No
Defense attorney: Did one of his employees tell you he wanted you to kill someone
Hitman: No
Defense attorney: Did anyone ask you to kill anyone
Hitman: No, I just presumed he wanted the person killed because Bill said that Terry said that John said he didn't like that person

Now you have the actual events taking place.

That's not really how it's going down. This is a good analogy of how it goes down, using another type of crime as an example.



I just talked to five extremely credible witnesses of a bank robbery, all their stories told the same story, that two persons were killed and the killers ran off with the money. They give similar descriptions, and all were identified in a line up, not long after they were caught just down the road and apprehended.


None of the robbers mentioned the words murder or robbery.

A republican, using the logic they are giving, would argue nothing happened.


In a court of law the above would be enough to convict. You obviously are ignorant of what evidence is.

 

[tres borrachos]

Is this the same Ken Starr who spent dozens of millions of taxpayer money to find evidence of crimes committed by Bill Clinton and uncovered exactly zero evidence of crimes, and only came out with a semen stained dress that Clinton, in an unforced error having nothing to do with Starr, lied about?

 

[tres borrachos]

:lamo

You people are so eager to kick yourselves in the balls you couldnt even get Starrs FIRST comment right, let alone his comment after the GOP congressmen had him reveal that there was in fact no QPQ, no bribery...and that everything he had to offer was pure speculation.


Starr did NOT say it was 'over'. Starr said: “Substantively, what we heard from the Chairman just now is ‘it’s over,’ I mean this is his position, ‘we now know that the president in fact committed the crime of bribery’”

Starr didnt flip flop. He didnt change his mind.

You folk have been kicking your own ass over stuff like this for three years.

Hey Vance, how come I have asked you at least 10 times now to prove your claim that Trump "literally employed millions of people", and you never did?

You didn't lie - did you?

 

[TomFitz]

Just googled it.

Starr apparently did a total 180 this morning.

So, Trump was correct Starr is saying the exact opposite today.

Lol.

I'm just picturing Lou Dobbs and Hannity tying him up and beating the covfefe out of him


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Frankly, I heard Starr on Fox yesterday afternoon. I couldn’t believe it.

Starr spent six years leading the dumpster divers trying to get something, ANYTHING, on Bill Clinton.

Then he turns right around and dismisses the mountain of evidence that point to far more substantial crimes than lying about a blow job.

 

[TomFitz]

Hey Vance, how come I have asked you at least 10 times now to prove your claim that Trump "literally employed millions of people", and you never did?

You didn't lie - did you?

Trumpsters NEVER back up their claims. (Except for BS from trashy right wing blogs).

 

[tres borrachos]

Trumpsters NEVER back up their claims. (Except for BS from trashy right wing blogs).

I've literally asked Vance for the last month to back up his claim. He said that Trump employed millions of people.

ExxonMobil hasn't even employed millions of people in its entire history.

The citizens of Trump Fan Nation lie, and they don't even lie well.

 

[Stealers Wheel]

Hey Vance, how come I have asked you at least 10 times now to prove your claim that Trump "literally employed millions of people", and you never did?

You didn't lie - did you?

Millions? No, it was billions, I tell ya! Billions! and Billions. Trump is the Carl Sagan of business.

 

[Condor060]

Where did you leave your brain? Nine credible testimonies, all say the same thing.

They sure did. They were all asked the very same questions from Jim Jordon.

Do you have any evidence that President Trump committed Bribery
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Do you have any evidence that President Trump committed a Quid pro quo
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Do you have any evidence that President Trump committed an abuse of power
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Did Zelenski receive the funds
Answer by all 9 witnesses, YES

Did Zelenski start an investigation into the Bidens
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Did President Trump or Rudy Giuliani tell you to withhold the money
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Did President Trump or Rudy Giuliani tell you they were going to withhold the money
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

So explain to me just what evidence you have other than Bill told Jim who told John who told me or any evidence that doesn't include a witness stating they were just presuming it happened.

I suppose you think everyone is making **** up, deep state out to get Trump, etc.

Nope, they were very clear. They were only testifying to what others told them.

People are convicted of MURDER with less evidence than has been given, just ask any criminal lawyer, this is an airtight case, and you righties are just revealing your ignorance of such things.

You are just making crap up now. NOBODY is convicted on anyone's presumption of what happened. EVER

 

[OscarLevant]

They sure did. They were all asked the very same questions from Jim Jordon.

Do you have any evidence that President Trump committed Bribery
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Do you have any evidence that President Trump committed a Quid pro quo
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Do you have any evidence that President Trump committed an abuse of power
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Did Zelenski receive the funds
Answer by all 9 witnesses, YES

Did Zelenski start an investigation into the Bidens
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Did President Trump or Rudy Giuliani tell you to withhold the money
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

Did President Trump or Rudy Giuliani tell you they were going to withhold the money
Answer by all 9 witnesses, NO

So explain to me just what evidence you have other than Bill told Jim who told John who told me or any evidence that doesn't include a witness stating they were just presuming it happened.



Nope, they were very clear. They were only testifying to what others told them.


You are just making crap up now. NOBODY is convicted on anyone's presumption of what happened. EVER

If I wake up to see that snow was all over the ground I can presume that it snowed the night before

People are sent to jail all the time with such evidence and we have nine credible witnesses attesting to what they saw not what they heard Trump say

I saw a video of a robbery and murder and none of the robbers and murderers mentioned anything about murder or robbery during the crime

Bolton didn't tell Hill to tell the lawyers because they were playing tiddlywinks

But Trump won't let Bolton or anyone on the staff testify so right there he's obstructing justice and they have the hypocrisy to claim we are not being fair because we won't let their irrelevant Witnesses testify as well as they won't let their relevant Witnesses testify

Wake the **** up

 

[Condor060]

If I wake up to see that snow was all over the ground I can presume that it snowed the night before

People are sent to jail all the time with such evidence and we have nine credible witnesses attesting to what they saw not what they heard Trump say

I saw a video of a robbery and murder and none of the robbers and murderers mentioned anything about murder or robbery during the crime

Bolton didn't tell Hill to tell the lawyers because they were playing tiddlywinks

But Trump won't let Bolton or anyone on the staff testify so right there he's obstructing justice and they have the hypocrisy to claim we are not being fair because we won't let their irrelevant Witnesses testify as well as they won't let their relevant Witnesses testify

Wake the **** up

Why is it you need to come up with all these scenarios instead of just addressing the actual claims? Dodging around with made up scenarios instead of actually addressing the claims tells me everything I need to know