The narrative is so muddied now, appears to me what Rudy wanted was not the same as what Trump was saying and that disconnect confused a lot of people.Rapier108 said:
So the so called QPQ is Trump wanted an anti-corruption statement?
If that is impeachable, then we have to cut off all foreign aid because it is all a crime.
All of these options are still possible with many combinations and shades of each. Fake news is in pretty much every story about this mess. Criminal or improper QPQ v. normal QPQ (almost every transaction between humans) is hard to delineate. Ultimately, I don't give a f/ck if Trump squeezed Ukraine to find about 2016 shenanigans or Biden etal's misconduct. HTH.Quote:
"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be
The whole thing is becoming muddled...aggiehawg said:The narrative is so muddied now, appears to me what Rudy wanted was not the same as what Trump was saying and that disconnect confused a lot of people.Rapier108 said:
So the so called QPQ is Trump wanted an anti-corruption statement?
If that is impeachable, then we have to cut off all foreign aid because it is all a crime.
But hell if I know, at this point.
Gary Johnson said:
"FAKE news"
"There was no QPQ" <---- Trumpers are here
"QPQ is fine, not improper" <---- next stage
"QPQ is improper, but shouldn't cause removal from office" <------- Where Trumpers should be
DGAF AND STILL NOT TIRED OF WINNING<--------Where I am and where Trumpers REALLY are
Likely on purpose by the Democrats to make it where no one can find the truth because they only release stuff to fit their agenda.FireAg said:The whole thing is becoming muddled...aggiehawg said:The narrative is so muddied now, appears to me what Rudy wanted was not the same as what Trump was saying and that disconnect confused a lot of people.Rapier108 said:
So the so called QPQ is Trump wanted an anti-corruption statement?
If that is impeachable, then we have to cut off all foreign aid because it is all a crime.
But hell if I know, at this point.
Gary Johnson said:
According to Sondland opening an investigation wasn't good enough, it had to be a public declaration from the president(not the PGO) implicating the Bidens.
That's how you know what this was all about. A headline that helps him personally, not any kind of real anti-corruption action.
Problem is they had nothing on either and didn't know what they were supposed to be "investigating" so Zelensky punked Trump and didn't do it after the aid was released. This is the biggest derp scandal I can remember.
This is at least honest.Quote:
DGAF
Talking about the ridiculous "Ukrainian Server" conspiracy here not the Bidens. Two separate matters. The first one is dumb, but not unethical.Quote:
Opening the investigation, and publicly announcing it, aligns Ukraine with the US DOJ and gives our own investigators more power to seek testimony and evidence from Ukrainian nationals that Bill Barr can't subpoena. Ukraine would never be required to "lead" the investigation
From his testimony, he indicates he acted on a presumption:Gary Johnson said:
According to Sondland opening an investigation wasn't good enough, it had to be a public declaration from the president(not the PGO) implicating the Bidens.
That's how you know what this was all about. A headline that helps him personally, not any kind of real anti-corruption action.
Problem is they had nothing on either and didn't know what they were supposed to be "investigating" so Zelensky punked Trump and didn't do it after the aid was released. This is the biggest derp scandal I can remember.
Quote:
Quote 1: "By the beginning of September 2019, and in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement."
Quote 2: He told one of Zelensky's advisors that "resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks."
Gary Johnson said:Talking about the ridiculous "Ukrainian Server" conspiracy here not the Bidens. Two separate matters. The first one is dumb, but not unethical.Quote:
Opening the investigation, and publicly announcing it, aligns Ukraine with the US DOJ and gives our own investigators more power to seek testimony and evidence from Ukrainian nationals that Bill Barr can't subpoena. Ukraine would never be required to "lead" the investigation
The White House has been insistent there was no QPQ and are pushing awfully hard on witnesses who could corroborate it. But it's all falling apart.Quote:
Ultimately, I don't give a f/ck if Trump squeezed Ukraine to find about 2016 shenanigans or Biden etal's misconduct.
Quote:
"When this came out, it was 'quid pro quo' - well, there is none," the president said. "But now, the Democrats don't bring that up anymore because they lied."
Sure. There is no DOJ investigation because there is no credible allegation.Quote:
Can Joe Biden be investigated by the Trump DOJ for possible corruption concerning the money his son accepted in Ukraine or China?
Gary Johnson said:Sure. There is no DOJ investigation because there is no credible allegation.Quote:
Can Joe Biden be investigated by the Trump DOJ for possible corruption concerning the money his son accepted in Ukraine or China?
Edit: You do realize, that you just admited that one half of this "quid pro quo" is legal.
Thanks for confirming it for the ten-millionth time, I guess, but we already knew that about Trump supporters.Quote:
Ultimately, I don't give a f/ck if Trump committed extortion or briberysqueezed Ukraineto find about 2016 shenanigans or Biden etal's misconduct. HTH.
I think that's beyond obvious...but I do like to watch the left banter and wring their hands over it...captkirk said:
Trump not going anywhere. I don't know why you guys put yourselves through this over and over again
Gary Johnson said:
What crime is the DOJ investigating?
Quote:
Before sending that text, Ambassador Sondland had a phone call with the President.
Sondland asked President Trump "what do you want from Ukraine?"
The President said, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing... to do what he ran on."
MetoliusAg said:Thanks for confirming it for the ten-millionth time, I guess, but we already knew that about Trump supporters.Quote:
Ultimately, I don't give a f/ck if Trump committed extortion or briberysqueezed Ukraineto find about 2016 shenanigans or Biden etal's misconduct. HTH.
Trump supporters have made it patently clear for the past 3+ years that they don't care what crimes Trump commits. As Bo Darville and numerous other Trump supporters have repeatedly said in this forum, all y'all care about is policy.
Because it doesn't fit their narrative..will25u said:Quote:
Before sending that text, Ambassador Sondland had a phone call with the President.
Sondland asked President Trump "what do you want from Ukraine?"
The President said, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing... to do what he ran on."
Why did we gloss over this? Sondland straight up asks the President, and he said exactly "I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO."
Cuz muh insinuationswill25u said:Quote:
Before sending that text, Ambassador Sondland had a phone call with the President.
Sondland asked President Trump "what do you want from Ukraine?"
The President said, "I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing... to do what he ran on."
Why did we gloss over this? Sondland straight up asks the President, and he said exactly "I WANT NO QUID PRO QUO."
BMX Bandit said:
Rand may want to read that amendment.
Or maybe he should keep repeating it. The base is already 100% onboard with it.BMX Bandit said:
Rand may want to read that amendment.
Schiff wasn't kidding when he said he was conducting these "hearings" as a grand jury investigation where there is no due process mandated and exculpatory evidence is never presented to the grand jurors.hbtheduce said:BMX Bandit said:
Rand may want to read that amendment.
Correct, it specifies only criminal trials (most analogous to the senate trial). But I do think it defines the spirit of fairness and level of evidence expected for serious allegations.
If someone isn't willing to stand by their criminal accusation, it shouldn't be taken seriously by a jury or any American citizen.
MetoliusAg said:Or maybe he should keep repeating it. The base is already 100% onboard with it.BMX Bandit said:
Rand may want to read that amendment.
