I’m just glad that there are still a few places that exist where we are allowed to poke fun at Trump. Twitter has gotten ridiculous.
The other day, a famous movie celeb on twitter (who is famous for making fun of Trump with humor) was discussing his sudden (and ridiculous ) partial check-up visit to Walter Reed.
I replied to the conversation, @FamousDoucheNozzle So, heart attack, stroke, or did he attempt suicide? "Hamberders aren’t very good for you, Donald. "
Twitter notified me that I violated their targeted harassment TOS. I appealed, saying that I was joking and that this was political humor. "Nope. It’s been reviewed. You’re guilty. Delete it immediately and we will leave a Permanent Placeholder to show that YOU have violated TOS. Heil Dorsey! (Ok, I added that last part).
In truth, I hope that this was Twitter being a Dick. I’d hate to think that it was @FamousDoucheNozzle…
You know you can have your own personal web site, video hosting, twitter like application, or anything else you want online in order to poke fun at Trump, right?
Timeline:
July — Trump calls President Z, almost explicitly asking for a quid pro quo
August — Whistleblower informs us that Trump asked for quid pro quo in the phone call
September — Trump says “I want nothing No quid pro quo” into telephone
(November — Trump addresses cameras and rants from a script “I want nothing I want nothing I want nothing I want nothing”)
Jordan and the other stooges seem to think the September denial is a big gotcha that refutes the whole accusation. Did anyone ask the Idiots whether September comes before August on their calendars?
Yes, but like sex, it’s much more fun with other people.
Discussing this with a friend yesterday and he said quid pro quo is a normal part of international diplomatic negotiations and there is nothing wrong with it. I pointed out that the difference here is that the President was using it for personal gain and not for furthering national interests, and that amounts to bribery, which is breaking the law.
The nut of this whole affair seems to be hinged on the President’s quid pro quo with Ukraine can be PROVEN to be for his personal gain. Sondland testified quid pro quo was out in the open but was not sure of the details. It’s those details we need to see to know how strong the case is. We will need to wait and see if this results in anything at all or if the Democrats overplayed their hand (again).
Wikipedia on quid pro quo. In the US legal system, quid pro quo is generally understood to refer to illegal agreements of the sort you describe, i.e. parties outside the US government providing money or services that benefit US government officials personally, in exchange for official government actions that benefit those outside parties.
Funny how the GOP narrative has swung from “no quid pro quo” to “quid pro quos are normal and great!”
And once it’s been definitively established that this particular quid pro quo was neither normal nor great, because the beneficiary was only Trump and not the nation as a whole, they’ll move the goalposts to “investigating political rivals is normal and great!”
Twitter pulled similar shit on me, until I finally got banned. But if you are a fascist, a Nazi, a Trumpy, a far far right, etc etc …
If you tell the right lies and peddle the right fucking bullshit, you don’t hear a peep.
Fuck Twitter.
It’s already happening with a lot of “I can do what the fuck I want” in there too.
“It’s not a crime if the president does it” -R. Nixon
Funny how a lot of the same people who now seem to believe the president can do whatever the fuck he wants were, just a few years ago, accusing Obama of tyranny.
we have always been at war with eastasia
That’s because Obama went door-to-door and confiscated everybody’s guns.
This is old but continues to be relevant so for those who haven’t seen it: it’s an Art Buchwald column from 1973setting out standard responses from Nixon supporters arguing why Nixon shouldn’t be investigated/impeached. Several of them sounds disturbingly familiar - for example, just substitute “Benghazi” for “Chappaquiddick”.
I don’t know it appeared a bit smarmy to me.
My impression of him is that he went into the deposition with the understanding that everyone would say that there was no quid pro quo protect the president, but then we he read that everyone else had told the truth, he realized that as the only person who said otherwise, he could find himself sharing a cell with Stone, Gates, and Cohen and all of the others who were convicted of lying to Congress.
So he quickly revised his testimony to say, I don’t remember a thing, but agree with whatever anyone else said. figuring that this way he would be sure not to contradict anyone and so be safe from perjury.
Yes, Sondland’s first priority was very likely “don’t get convicted of perjury”. I think the Stone conviction rattled him, combined with the other witnesses contradicting his original version of events; pretty much all the Trump campaign convictions have included counts of lying under oath so Sondland could see which way the wind was blowing.
Sounds like the list you’re searching for is “Rape, murder, arson, and rape.”
You said rape twice.
Personally, I prefer stampeding cattle through the Vatican.
Hush, CaptMurdock! That’s a sure way to get him killed!