Just for ha ha’s I put Trump TV on last night to see what they were saying. Laura Ingraham mentioned Vinland was a nerdy goody two shoes that nobody liked and invited everyone to make fun of him. Then said that she found the whole inquiry boring as all hell, and that she decided to go clothes shopping instead. Then she said this country is lucky that we have a president who investigates other countries that are corrupt before sending our money to them. That was as much as I could take.
I don’t believe I have moved goalposts and the above are the only reasons consistent with acquittal of the president. In my opinion.
~Max
It’s my understanding that Ukraine has a history of not following up on promises, so a secret promise to cooperate with the AG on some investigation would be worthless. Hence the public announcement.
~Max
Then I will be disappointed. But in the likely case that the administration didn’t have legitimate investigations running, the point is moot.
~Max
That’s true, nobody’s ever broken a promise made in public. That’s why Trump promptly release his tax returns when he said he would.
Lois Romano, WaPo:
I guess Pompeo isresigning since “Trump is hurting his reputation.”
Can you imagine still believing Trump is #winning?
I missed it, but is this true: did Trump really give a presser using his giant, scrawled hand-written notes to pretend he said “I said 'I don’t want a quid pro quo?”
“If I make it look like back then I said ‘I’m LITERALLY not doing that crime that I will soon be accused of,’ it’ll REALLY make me look innocent!”
“Make sure they know I’m not interested in any quid pro quos, in case some impeachment comes up later that uses that term! I expressly said I didn’t want that!”
This is his defense?
The Republicans need to list perfectly acceptable cases cases where foreign aid was conditioned on another country taking actions, and ask Sondland if those are “quid pro quos”, and also maybe ask him things like “is marriage a quid pro quo?” The sound bite is “Sondland said there was a quid pro quo”, but he may not be saying it is a nefarious quid pro quo.
I’m curious what he means by telling Zelensky to “do the right thing?” Publicly announce that there was no quid pro quo?
If I’m Zelensky, I’m thinking, “Dream on, you fat extorting fuckwad. Now that I have the funds, why should I keep kissing your ass?”
I totally agree that they should ask questions like, “Is marriage a quid pro quo?” and if I had a magic wand I’d put you in charge of writing their questions RIGHT NOW.
Gym Jordan needs to switch to decaf.
Oh, so has the GOP defense now transitioned from “No quid pro quo” to “Quid pro quo is actually a good thing?” Christ on a bike.
Old geezer the subject
Of witch-hunt fantasy
They want him so badly
Impeachment’s got to be
Inside him there’s no love
This man’s a pit of rage
With Sondland they’re so close now
There’s Sharpie on the page
DON’T WANT NO
DON’T WANT NO
DON’T WANT NO QUID PRO QUO
Haha, the days of breaking bones are long gone, fortunately!
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
lol
read that in the voice of Elvis / Jailhouse Rock
~Max
I’m assuming that he meant “ investigate Biden” by “do the right thing.” No quid pro quo because it was “the right thing” to do! :smack:
And never mind that “the right thing” was based on conspiracy theories and no actual evidence. Imma bet Ukraine has more stuff to investigate than an incidence of a wealthy guy getting a cushy, lucrative job by way of his famous wealthy dad. Or if that’s the type of thing that is a priority to be investigated, then we really should check into the cushy, easy jobs the trump children have received by way of their connections.
Naw, man, Sting!
That may be true, however the law as it is stated says that the IRS shell turn over tax returns belonging to anyone if Congress asks. It’s spelled out pretty clearly. When you factor in the fact that there is a ton of evidence of possible criminality that will be revealed by those tax returns, it seems pretty obvious he will be compelled to reveal them. Or the IRS or mazurs will.
As for regulations that require someone holding his office 2 provide certain documents? Seems to me like that can be addressed down the road. But it is pretty silly that I, a lily poker dealer, had to jump through farmer hoops and reveal considerable information about myself to get a job paying $5 in change an hour plus tips while the president of the United States has no such scrutiny, and in fact grants himself his own security clearance.
Sent from my SM-G935P using Tapatalk
That fits much better.
How did I not see that? :smack:
~Max