Trumptards a Q?
Comments
-
Weird the way ABC and CBS and the BBC and Politico and The Nation have all run with this "conspiracy theory."insinceredawg said:
I'm only tuning in if GayBob and Sledog are on discussing Russian conspiracy theories.YellowSnow said:
Me and @Swaye might start a Hardcore Husky politics pod where we solve the world's problem one pod at a time. But you've got to be an Elite 8 HH poster to be on the show. @UW_Doog_Bot and @RaceBannon in. Rest of your troglodytes probably don't have what it takes.Swaye said:
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.creepycoug said:I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats. -
Any links to share that aren't 3 years old?SFGbob said:
Weird the way ABC and CBS and the BBC and Politico and The Nation have all run with this "conspiracy theory."insinceredawg said:
I'm only tuning in if GayBob and Sledog are on discussing Russian conspiracy theories.YellowSnow said:
Me and @Swaye might start a Hardcore Husky politics pod where we solve the world's problem one pod at a time. But you've got to be an Elite 8 HH poster to be on the show. @UW_Doog_Bot and @RaceBannon in. Rest of your troglodytes probably don't have what it takes.Swaye said:
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.creepycoug said:I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
538 actually mentioned it in their blog today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/impeachment-sondland-hearing/246432/
In the hearings so far, Republicans have tried to trace responsibility for Manafort’s ouster back to an unproven conspiracy between Ukrainian bureaucrats and Democratic Party. To do this, they’ve leaned heavily on a 2017 Politico investigation that reported that a Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa was investigating ties between Manafort and Yanukovych in 2016 and was in touch with Ukrainian officials in the process. It’s very unclear, though, how much help the Ukrainians actually gave Chalupa, who has said the Ukrainian-interference theory is a distraction promoted by the Kremlin. And there’s no evidence that the DNC used the information Chalupa found, or that there was any kind of concerted effort within the Ukrainian government was trying to help Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the fact that Republicans are continuing to lean on an article that’s almost three years old suggests that there isn’t more to the story. -
Shared them yesterday in a thread where you were running that ignorant twat of a mouth IC. Obviously you were very interested.insinceredawg said:
Any links to share that aren't 3 years old?SFGbob said:
Weird the way ABC and CBS and the BBC and Politico and The Nation have all run with this "conspiracy theory."insinceredawg said:
I'm only tuning in if GayBob and Sledog are on discussing Russian conspiracy theories.YellowSnow said:
Me and @Swaye might start a Hardcore Husky politics pod where we solve the world's problem one pod at a time. But you've got to be an Elite 8 HH poster to be on the show. @UW_Doog_Bot and @RaceBannon in. Rest of your troglodytes probably don't have what it takes.Swaye said:
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.creepycoug said:I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
538 actually mentioned it in their blog today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/impeachment-sondland-hearing/246432/
In the hearings so far, Republicans have tried to trace responsibility for Manafort’s ouster back to an unproven conspiracy between Ukrainian bureaucrats and Democratic Party. To do this, they’ve leaned heavily on a 2017 Politico investigation that reported that a Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa was investigating ties between Manafort and Yanukovych in 2016 and was in touch with Ukrainian officials in the process. It’s very unclear, though, how much help the Ukrainians actually gave Chalupa, who has said the Ukrainian-interference theory is a distraction promoted by the Kremlin. And there’s no evidence that the DNC used the information Chalupa found, or that there was any kind of concerted effort within the Ukrainian government was trying to help Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the fact that Republicans are continuing to lean on an article that’s almost three years old suggests that there isn’t more to the story. -
What does three years old have to do with anything?
When the facts are against you talk about how old the story is? -
I'm actually feeling pretty good about today's events and do not need a hug. Buying a trump 2020 yard sign for my yard to publicly tell everyone to FUCK OFF.CirrhosisDawg said:
@DoogieMcDoogerson needs a hug and reassurance too.creepycoug said:
Also hurtful.CirrhosisDawg said:
This “analysis” is 1000x better the news you read in newspapers or see on tv?DoogieMcDoogerson said:Funny that this analysis of what’s going on is 1000x better than anything you’ll see on tv and 99% of the analysis on blogs, websites, etc. I mean, seriously - this is where I go to get real takes on these political matters. I love you guys mostly but hondo and CD can both fuck off.
You come to the tug tavern, where a half dozen trumptards troll and lie to the other half dozen credulous trumptrash retards, for “real takes” on politics?
JFC & Roflmao
This thread is turning mean and I'm scared. -
Tim Morrison, a GOP witness yesterday and former top adviser on the NSC testified under oath that Ukraine election meddling was a hoax yet Gay Bob here still propping up 3 year old articles to prove his point. JFC.SFGbob said:
Shared them yesterday in a thread where you were running that ignorant twat of a mouth IC. Obviously you were very interested.insinceredawg said:
Any links to share that aren't 3 years old?SFGbob said:
Weird the way ABC and CBS and the BBC and Politico and The Nation have all run with this "conspiracy theory."insinceredawg said:
I'm only tuning in if GayBob and Sledog are on discussing Russian conspiracy theories.YellowSnow said:
Me and @Swaye might start a Hardcore Husky politics pod where we solve the world's problem one pod at a time. But you've got to be an Elite 8 HH poster to be on the show. @UW_Doog_Bot and @RaceBannon in. Rest of your troglodytes probably don't have what it takes.Swaye said:
Good chit. @YellowSnow and I were chatting today and this is a more nuanced version of what we sort of think. The only person who could potentially know that Trump was trying to "bribe" Ukraine is Rudy, and he can't be compelled to testify as Trumps lawyer even if it is true, so all you are left with is a bunch of people who have thoughts and opinions on what happened, and lots of speculation, but zero hard evidence. The longer this goes the worse it looks for the Dems, because Americans, while dumb, are not so dumb as to see a continual line of witnesses get up and say I think maybe something happened here but Trump never ordered me to do it somehow means Trump is guilty.creepycoug said:I watched it through until Castor was, I presume, about half way through questions. Just after the "this is a really important point" comment at the point Sondland was basically reasserting the 2+2 = 4 bit. Then I had a meeting and then I had to run over here. It's hard pretending to be a lawyer.
If I'm on team Trump and I'm being honest, based only what I heard this morning, I take two things away thus far: (1) it's clear nobody's going to be able to say that Trump told them to do anything that touches upon "this for that"; and (2) we're getting some meat on the bone of what most of us have assumed/suspected/worried about for some time, which is that Rudy G. is clearly there to be Trump's buffer between orders and having to answer for them, a classic rich guy move. Tell me again why you guys hate lawyers so much.
Whatever is going on here, I don't believe that Rudy G. is ever off on a rogue frolic, nor do I believe that we should be in impeachment hearings. Seems to me the longer this goes on, the more likely it is that Trump wins re-election. The DNC would be smart to just drop all this, but it's way past that point now.
Keep it up Schiff. We love it in the cheap seats.
538 actually mentioned it in their blog today: https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/impeachment-sondland-hearing/246432/
In the hearings so far, Republicans have tried to trace responsibility for Manafort’s ouster back to an unproven conspiracy between Ukrainian bureaucrats and Democratic Party. To do this, they’ve leaned heavily on a 2017 Politico investigation that reported that a Democratic operative named Alexandra Chalupa was investigating ties between Manafort and Yanukovych in 2016 and was in touch with Ukrainian officials in the process. It’s very unclear, though, how much help the Ukrainians actually gave Chalupa, who has said the Ukrainian-interference theory is a distraction promoted by the Kremlin. And there’s no evidence that the DNC used the information Chalupa found, or that there was any kind of concerted effort within the Ukrainian government was trying to help Hillary Clinton. Indeed, the fact that Republicans are continuing to lean on an article that’s almost three years old suggests that there isn’t more to the story. -
That will show them! (Best to stay off cable tv news in this difficult time for you).DoogieMcDoogerson said:I'm actually feeling pretty good about today's events and do not need a hug. Buying a trump 2020 yard sign for my yard to publicly tell everyone to FUCK OFF.
CirrhosisDawg said:
@DoogieMcDoogerson needs a hug and reassurance too.creepycoug said:
Also hurtful.CirrhosisDawg said:
This “analysis” is 1000x better the news you read in newspapers or see on tv?DoogieMcDoogerson said:Funny that this analysis of what’s going on is 1000x better than anything you’ll see on tv and 99% of the analysis on blogs, websites, etc. I mean, seriously - this is where I go to get real takes on these political matters. I love you guys mostly but hondo and CD can both fuck off.
You come to the tug tavern, where a half dozen trumptards troll and lie to the other half dozen credulous trumptrash retards, for “real takes” on politics?
JFC & Roflmao
This thread is turning mean and I'm scared. -
Any article written on the moon landing that's more than 3 years old obviously can't be true. Kunt logic, is there anything it can't do?RaceBannon said:What does three years old have to do with anything?
When the facts are against you talk about how old the story is? -
3 years ago Marlon Tui was committed to UW and Petersen was a great coach. Things change, boomer.RaceBannon said:What does three years old have to do with anything?
When the facts are against you talk about how old the story is? -
