Trumptards a Q?
Comments
-
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicitinsinceredawg said:Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts:
-Aid to Ukraine was withheld
-Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened? -
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. -
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. -
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.HHusky said:
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicitinsinceredawg said:Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts:
-Aid to Ukraine was withheld
-Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened? -
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.Sledog said:
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.HHusky said:
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicitinsinceredawg said:Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts:
-Aid to Ukraine was withheld
-Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened? -
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.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.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up. -
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.HHusky said:
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.Sledog said:
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.HHusky said:
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicitinsinceredawg said:Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts:
-Aid to Ukraine was withheld
-Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened? -
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.Sledog said:
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.HHusky said:
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.Sledog said:
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.HHusky said:
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicitinsinceredawg said:Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts:
-Aid to Ukraine was withheld
-Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag. -
I think the two are pretty equal we just hear less about Hillary. Her secret service agents have interesting stories.creepycoug said:
Bill Clinton was a scumbag, which is unfortunate because I generally liked his politics. He was almost conservative is many respects.Sledog said:
Copy you agree Clinton committed a felony. The surprising thing is they actually disbarred him.HHusky said:
If your question wasn't rhetorical, the Mall should definitely ask you to turn in your badge.Sledog said:
Speaking of felonies you never answered my question.HHusky said:
Obviously Daddy is surrounded by people who just assume he wants them to take multiple unethical and felonious actions on his behalf. #MobBossWasn'tExplicitinsinceredawg said:Of course you morons have predictably attacked career state officials and military vets to protect the orange draft dodger but I've yet to see a coherent defense or explanation of what you believe transpired.
I think we can at least acknowledge the following are facts:
-Aid to Ukraine was withheld
-Trump wanted Zelensky to publicly announce that he was investigating Biden
Are we supposed to believe that these weren't related? I thought you all had moved on to "quid pro quo is okay" but you are still calling all witnesses as liars. So what is the current narrative about what happened?
But a scumbag he was. He's not alone, but when you really dig into Bill you have to conclude he's not a good guy. No, I don't believe the tin foil hat stories about pizza stores and pedo coverups. I'll need something direct on that one. But rambling on about the Clintons is hardly a persuastive technique. Anybody who knows anything knows the Clintons, Bill much more so than Hillary IMO, was/is a dirt bag. -
I can buy that fully. Trump went off half cocked and told some of the inner circle "look we have to get at the corruption over there and what better way to do it then making the son of the dipshit Biden look like a crook." Then one of the msart lawyers in the room was like "Uh, orange man, you can't do that." Trump mashed off some Tweet calling someone an idiot to make himself feel better about being told no, and then Rudy stepped in to go actually provide some insulation and try to go get something done only using the words Burisma instead of Biden so the appearance was on the up and up and technically met muster. That is plausible to me, and fits with Trumps half cocked petulant behavior.creepycoug said:
Agreed, especially on the damage this is doing in real time to the as of yet unnamed shit show the DNC will choose to run. That guy/gal will really hate this whole circus when the campaign starts. It's kind of like Gangs of New York: when you kill a king, you see it through and you do it where everyone can see you do it. You don't "try" to do it; you don't show up to a gun fight with a sitting US President with just your dick in your hands.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.
That said, if you put a gun to my head and my life depended on the accuracy of my guess at the truth here, I'd say there was something there. I'd say Trump is a crafty old rich dood who knows how to position his lawyers and other flunkies between himself and the shit he sometimes wants to do. I don't think doing this would be beneath him. I could absolutely see him making a move on something like this, finding out later it's a no no and then protecting himself. So, sure, by the time Sondland blurts out "What do you want from Ukraine?", a question if asked of me in that manner would make me wonder if I were being recorded, he probably by then had been informed it wasn't ok to offer that trade or make that implied threat. I'm just being straight here ... that scenario, IMO, is well within Trump's wheel house. But we know he's not an alter boy, so I'm not really sure I care that much.
Only thing that really matters here is that this whole circus is yet another example of the left overplaying their hand. It's such a Cuog! move to do this. They really fucked up.
That said, as far as this investigation goes, even if all we say is true, there is no there there from an impeachment perspective. Keep going Dems. The senators running for President are going to love spending half the campaign season in session in DC listening to testimony at the trial. That should work out well for you.
