brilliant!
“Mr. President, that means you have something that shows your innocence,”
Calling him a liar and a moron in one phrase? I’ll allow it.
He will sign his declaration of innocence right there in front of the American people! Case closed, libs pwned!
Indeed.
Is it a dog or a cat? You decide this by looking at all the evidence, which in this case is the animal in question. All the evidence is readily available and in the open. In the Ukraine debacle, this doesn’t apply. There are people involved that have not been questioned. That’s all I’m saying. I want to hear from them before I make any final conclusions about the whole thing.
On top of the fact that the man trying to sell the dog is making claims in attempt to convince the other guy. I am not making claims here, I am making suppositions and considering them. Big difference.
[del]Woof.[/del] Meow!
“…to the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“Nothing ‘curious’ about it, Holmes, you coked-up nincompoop, it was a cat!”
So Trump is saying he doesn’t know what Guiliani was up to in Ukraine and this is being characterized as Trump throwing him under the bus. Very clever. Name a fall guy to take the blame for the whole thing and it might just go away.
However, if this was Guiliani’s side project (that Trump knew nothing about) why did OMB indulge him on holding up the aid to Ukraine?
Looks like you’re gonna need that insurance Rudy.
Your passion for justice is admirable. No, wait…I meant to say that your disingenuity is NOT admirable. Sorry about that.
I’m sure you know that is not true. That is, in all situations you are in you cannot be waiting for all the facts to come in before taking any action. There is proportionality, cost/benefit, and potential fatality/harm, among other factors to figure in. This is common to all…humans.
So you are waiting for them to be interviewed? That’s it? Shouldn’t we postpone this discussion then? Are we having it prematurely?
That’s a fair point but a very simple one to deal with.
Since you made no specific point about my *supposed *disingenuity, I don’t care what you meant to say at this point. But I do welcome you pointing out what you’re getting at, if you want to discuss it.
All of the facts usually don’t come in. That is true. But when a number of people whom it seems likely to be involved in some way (Pence, Perry, Pompeo…) have NOT be interviewed, I think there is a decent chance that there is more to be known. If you don’t, that of course is fine.
Now, just a general question:
I started out by saying “Suppose, just suppose…” To my recollection without going back and looking, only Sherrerd responded directly to what I said about the idea I thought of regarding Trump’s involvement. Everyone else seems to think I have some agenda here, some ulterior motive, other than just wanting discussing that. I assure you I do not.
(bolding mine)
Who is preventing these interviews? When they talk about preventing them - does it sound like they have a reason to withhold these ‘facts’ that might exonerate the person in question?
I completely agree these people - and others - Mulvaney for one - know things we should know about the situation - but seems they are being obstructed.
Therefore - I have no problem going ahead with what we do know at this point.
You continue to repeat this like it’s just an oversight, that the House just hasn’t gotten around to talking to them. That ignores, yet again, that two of just who you named, plus how many others, are actively ignoring subpoenas. If there was exculpatory evidence, it would have been provided - like Trump’s call to Sondland saying “NO QUID PRO QUO”.
You’re insisting that there might just be a nugget of help out there for Trump’s case, yet no one has given us that information - especially given that it would immeasurably help the President out of his current predicament. So I ask, if there are facts out there helpful to Trump, why has the American people not heard about them?
I think that it’s been established that the failures to appear are evidence of guilt. You are making contortions to avoid the actualities, which would indicate dt is a danger in the wh. His obstructions indicate as much, as do the obstructions of those others.
I for one am using the standard that there is no massaging of the facts from here that can change the ones we already know anyway. It can only get worse for them. I say get dt out of office and then prosecute the gang criminally afterwards and answer all those questions that you have.
Wow! That’s a good one. I see that argumentation style all the time here.
Guess I was right (it certainly got a lot more traction than the other time I posted it).
OK, like the guy in the strip says, “When will you be satisfied that you have ‘all the facts’?”
Specifically, who still needs to be questioned, and why? And in instances where Trump is actively enabling them to keep from testifying, why does that fact not suffice?
Yeah, that strip totally nails it.