Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo."

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by pamak View Post

    No, the question is why should not an Ukrainian ambassador criticize Trump for implying such recognition. If one makers such claims, he invites criticism and such reaction is not evidence of some nefarious plan of having Ukraine intervene in the Us elections.
    Ukraine intervened already in 2016 ,long before Trump's intention to recognize the Anschluss of Crimea .
    Politico : 1/11/2017 :Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire .
    Here we have the smoking gun ,from a leftist media,proving that in 2016 the Democrats conspired with a foreign government against a political rival .
    Last edited by ljadw; 22 Nov 19, 10:39.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by ljadw View Post

      Ukraine intervened already in 2016 ,long before Trump's intention to recognize the Anschluss of Crimea .
      Politico : 1/11/2017 :Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire .
      Here we have the smoking gun ,from a leftist media,proving that in 2016 the Democrats conspired with a foreign government against a political rival .
      Sorry, but we have a series of diplomats including people friendly to Trump who described under oath specifically how Ukrainians who were afraid of losing their position and for being exposed by the anti-corruption efforts of the US government were ready to spread conspiracy theories to make themselves look useful to Trump and Guiliani. Having a journalist picking such theories from such dubious sources is not convincing.

      My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Nichols View Post

        Of course you won't repeat it because there was no "strong evidence" as you claim.

        The only evidence produced was second hand, hearsay, and presumption. That is evidence that proved there was no quid pro quo....no bribery.

        There was an interesting note from today's 'witness'

        She said that when Trump won, the started collecting information on other world leaders and what they said about Trump.

        Obviously Trump didn't order that collection or the democrats would have used that for impeachment.

        So the question is; why did these careerist order this collection of data?
        why do you keep saying second hand when the reason you do not have first hand is because the guy being investigated wont let them testify.

        You would think you would give more weight to the guys who did testify. Over the guys who could solve a lot of this who have not testify.

        I mean some of their testimony is not obviousl protected ie stuff not involving conversations with the president.

        Hillary had a nice full day of testimony a few years ago or is the new argument is that was wrong and jim Jordan was wrong for calling her as a witness.

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          Sorry, but we have a series of diplomats including people friendly to Trump who described under oath specifically how Ukrainians who were afraid of losing their position and for being exposed by the anti-corruption efforts of the US government were ready to spread conspiracy theories to make themselves look useful to Trump and Guiliani. Having a journalist picking such theories from such dubious sources is not convincing.
          I see : now Politico is a dubious source .
          And what people friendly to Trump ?
          Besides : how could these '' friends '' of Trump know that what the Ukrainians said,were conspiracy theories ?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by ljadw View Post

            I see : now Politico is a dubious source .
            And what people friendly to Trump ?
            Besides : how could these '' friends '' of Trump know that what the Ukrainians said,were conspiracy theories ?
            The journalist of Politico got the information from dubious sources. These diplomats explained how they came to such conclusions and the motives of the people who were pushing such conspiracy theories only because they felt threatened by the possibility of seeing the success of US anti-corruption efforts led by the US ambassador and Yonavovic at the time .

            And it is interesting that ALL of them dismissed these conspiracy theories and praised the character and integrity of a career US diplomat who became also the target of such conspiracy theories,
            I think they know much more about the people with which they worked and the Ukrainian sources who spread conspiracy theories.
            Last edited by pamak; 22 Nov 19, 14:05.
            My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Massena View Post

              Then you missed his testimony. You don't know what happened and yet you're passing judgment on it? Good grief.
              \reading stuff is hard. don't be so cruel

              https://www.theamericanconservative....rdinary-kooks/
              Perhaps our beloved Republican Pundits may wish to read the American Conservative on the topic.

              Or, if necessary, have it read to them....
              Last edited by marktwain; 22 Nov 19, 13:45.
              The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

              Comment


              • #82
                Schiff was very funny when he made his comments about Trump's statement.

                As Sondland testified when he talked to the president on September 9 (on the same day the House announced an investigation about the whistleblower complaint), he went to the president to discuss the Ukrainian affair and why there has not been any progress yet and asked him "What do you want?" (or words to that effect). And it was at that moment when Trump said "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo!"

                Schiff said that this is like having a traffic cop stopping a driver and asking him how fast was he driving and the driver responding "I did not rob the bank! I did not rob the bank! " lolol
                My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by pamak View Post
                  Schiff was very funny when he made his comments about Trump's statement.

                  As Sondland testified when he talked to the president on September 9 (on the same day the House announced an investigation about the whistleblower complaint), he went to the president to discuss the Ukrainian affair and why there has not been any progress yet and asked him "What do you want?" (or words to that effect). And it was at that moment when Trump said "I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo!"

                  Schiff said that this is like having a traffic cop stopping a driver and asking him how fast was he driving and the driver responding "I did not rob the bank! I did not rob the bank! " lolol
                  The correct answer to a traffic cop stopping a driver and asking him if he knows how fast was driving is always "Yes officer, I do."

                  Now, if he asks the follow up question "And how fast was that?" In Arizona the proper answer should be "A reasonable and prudent speed as required by section 28-701a and c of the Arizona Revised Statutes."


                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                    The correct answer to a traffic cop stopping a driver and asking him if he knows how fast was driving is always "Yes officer, I do."

                    Now, if he asks the follow up question "And how fast was that?" In Arizona the proper answer should be "A reasonable and prudent speed as required by section 28-701a and c of the Arizona Revised Statutes."

                    I assume you learned the lesson after your first stop...lol

                    Yes, the cops try to lead you to admit that you were driving above the speed limit.
                    Many people answer by saying something that seems they were driving "a little bit" above the speed limit which of course fits the cop's objective perfectly.
                    My most dangerous mission: I landed in the middle of an enemy tank battalion and I immediately, started spraying bullets killing everybody around me having fun up until my computer froze...

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by pamak View Post

                      I assume you learned the lesson after your first stop...lol
                      Be smarter than the cop. I've run my speeding ticket against several cops I know as a trial run thing, they all say the same thing: It's devastating. The only thing that will save them is the judge won't care and rule against you anyway. I tell them that changes when we do the tap dance a second time in Superior Court-- no liar... err, lawyer needed.

                      Yes, they always try to lead you to admitting that you were driving above the speed limit.
                      Many people answer by saying something that seems they were driving "a little bit" above the limit which of course fits the cop's objective perfectly.
                      My answers give nothing away. Oh, the third question they usually ask is "Are you a lawyer?" My answer is, "Would it make a difference?" If they say "No," then you reply "Then why did you ask?" and they're finished. If they say "Yes," they're finished. At that point you have them. Now they've admitted that your being a lawyer or not would make a difference and that bias is sufficient to call into question their motive for stopping you....


                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                        Ohhh, Laddie. You want to believe in the man's EVERY word , even though he
                        Bulled it out his rump for four years with his birther nonsense.
                        2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/index.html


                        Rather TOUCHING, - LIKE BEING IN AN O. Henry STORY.....
                        So you're saying Sondland was lying? What if Sondland said Trump did ask for a quid pro quo? Would he be lying then? What will you accept as the truth from these witnesses?
                        "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                        "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by pamak View Post

                          Of course there IS plenty and strong evidence of Trump wanting a quid pro quo which is different from the claim that Trump did not explicitly mentioned it. And the law of bribery makes it clear that even an INDIRECT demand is still illegal

                          https://forums.armchairgeneral.com/f...es#post5152094

                          (b)Whoever—

                          (2)being a
                          public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
                          (A)
                          being influenced in the performance of any
                          official act;

                          Guiliani is at the center of this at the direction of Trump. Trump also asked Zelinksi during the phone call to talk to Guiiani. Also, as Sondland said, when the president told Sondland to talk to Guiliani, then whatever Sondland heard from Guilianiregarding the things Ukrainians need to do in order to get a WH meeting with Trump is presumed to come from Trump himself
                          What is the strong evidence? Since you're the only person who has it, you should probably run down to D.C. and tell Schiff. Maybe you can be in one of those private interrogations.
                          "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                          "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by American87 View Post

                            So you're saying Sondland was lying? What if Sondland said Trump did ask for a quid pro quo? Would he be lying then? What will you accept as the truth from these witnesses?
                            Nope. I would recommend you read the American Conservative's article, which elegantly explains past MY SELF ADMITTED LIMITATIONS.
                            The trout who swims against the current gets the most oxygen..

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                              Be smarter than the cop. I've run my speeding ticket against several cops I know as a trial run thing,
                              So you haven't actually done it in real life? So everything after this is a masturbatory intelligence fantasy.......

                              But we know the truth

                              Originally posted by TAG in 2018
                              But, when you divide population by GDP to get the GDP per person in the state.... Arizona gets $23.54 versus California's $14.48. That is, Arizona is nearly TWICE as productive as California. No wonder... Between massive regulations, high taxes, and a large population on welfare, California isn't very productive for its massive size.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by marktwain View Post

                                Nope. I would recommend you read the American Conservative's article, which elegantly explains past MY SELF ADMITTED LIMITATIONS.
                                Ok
                                "It is a fine fox chase, my boys"

                                "It is well that war is so terrible-we would grow too fond of it"

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X