Jump to content

chasfh

The Presidency of Donald J. Trump

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Remember all those times you said there was no quid pro quo?  That was hilarious.  

Good luck with your "evidence" being a NYT opinion piece. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can a non-Papi fill me in on what this NYT piece is he keeps blabbering about? I thought the evidence was the transcript that Trump released not to mention all the testimony.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Good luck with your "evidence" being a NYT opinion piece. 

At least I wasn't hilariously wrong about there being a quid pro quo like you were.   

You posted Washington Examiner opinion piece as "evidence" just yesterday chief.  Nice glass house.  I bet your glass house it's a pile of **** b/c you suck at capitalism, and also at message board posting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, pfife said:

At least I wasn't hilariously wrong about there being a quid pro quo like you were.   

You posted Washington Examiner opinion piece as "evidence" just yesterday chief.  Nice glass house.  I bet your glass house it's a pile of **** b/c you suck at capitalism, and also at message board posting.

Hilariously wrong? Uh, No. The NYT apparently is now apparently first hand evidence. It's right in the transcript (page 299 and 300, to be exact).

Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and [Ukrainian company that employed Hunter] Burisma?

Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about [Trump’s private lawyer] Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.

Zeldin: And then it’s your inference that Mr. Giuliani’s goal would be the President’s goal?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: And your source is the New York Times?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: So do you have any other source that the President’s goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?

Taylor: I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the President was thinking.

Zeldin: Is it possible that the request to investigate interference with the 2015 election was not to influence a future election?

Taylor: I don't know, Congressman.

Zeldin:  Well, you just told us what you inferred based off of what The New York Times told you Rudy Giuliani was thinking, which inferred what the President was thinking. I'm asking you to answer a question that, is it possible that the request to investigate the 2016 election was for a reason other than influencing the 2020 election? Is that possible?

Taylor: I don't know if its possible. 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D008.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, stanpapi said:

Look, I recognize it's hard when your star witness in the "impeachment" hearing says his only source of information on Trump is the NYT and the lawyer for the "whistleblower" commented previously that the "coup" had begun. 

Lots of star witness... including your favorite fact witness, Gordon "My Memory Has Been Refreshed" Sondland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mtutiger said:

Lots of star witness... including your favorite fact witness, Gordon "My Memory Has Been Refreshed" Sondland.

See above. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Hilariously wrong? Uh, No. The NYT apparently is now apparently first hand evidence. It's right in the transcript (page 299 and 300, to be exact).

Zeldin: What was the goal of requesting investigations into 2016 election and [Ukrainian company that employed Hunter] Burisma?

Taylor: As I understand it from one of the maybe the article in the New York Times about [Trump’s private lawyer] Mr. [Rudy] Giuliani’s interest in Burisma, in that article, he describes, and I think he quotes Giuliani at some length, that article indicates that Giuliani was interested in getting some information on Vice President Biden that would be useful to Mr.Giuliani’s client. I think that’s what he says. He says he’s got one client, and he’s useful to the client.

Zeldin: And then it’s your inference that Mr. Giuliani’s goal would be the President’s goal?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: And your source is the New York Times?

Taylor: Yes.

Zeldin: So do you have any other source that the President’s goal in making this request was anything other than the New York Times?

Taylor: I have not talked to the president. I have no other information from what the President was thinking.

Zeldin: Is it possible that the request to investigate interference with the 2015 election was not to influence a future election?

Taylor: I don't know, Congressman.

Zeldin:  Well, you just told us what you inferred based off of what The New York Times told you Rudy Giuliani was thinking, which inferred what the President was thinking. I'm asking you to answer a question that, is it possible that the request to investigate the 2016 election was for a reason other than influencing the 2020 election? Is that possible?

Taylor: I don't know if its possible. 

https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IG/IG00/CPRT-116-IG00-D008.pdf

Remember that time you said there was no quid pro quo?  That was hilarious.   The best part was when Mulvaney admitted it the same day you were here being super hilariously wrong.   The next best is the 10 ppl who have testified under oath that there was.   The next best part is the dude who had to change his testimony about it.   


The worst part about it is your lame cherrypicking of testimony.  Be best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Oblong said:

 

YoUr OnLy EvIdEnCE iS A NyT OpInIoN PiEcE

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, oh why, are you letting Stan play you? His responses are more ridiculous and other-worldly each time. He’s not going to acknowledge that a previous statement of his proved wrong.

Let em pass. 

Silly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, pfife said:

Remember that time you said there was no quid pro quo?  That was hilarious.   The best part was when Mulvaney admitted it the same day you were here being super hilariously wrong.   The next best is the 10 ppl who have testified under oath that there was.   The next best part is the dude who had to change his testimony about it.   


The worst part about it is your lame cherrypicking of testimony.  Be best.

Good luck with the NYT opinion piece being your "evidence". And by the way, the next time you hand pick a "whistleblower", you also might want to make sure he doesn't retain an attorney who has previously posted tweets about starting a coup against the president. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, smr-nj said:

Why, oh why, are you letting Stan play you? His responses are more ridiculous and other-worldly each time. He’s not going to acknowledge that a previous statement of his proved wrong.

Let em pass. 

Silly.

My response was quoting the transcript of the interview. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Good luck with the NYT opinion piece being your "evidence". And by the way, the next time you hand pick a "whistleblower", you also might want to make sure he doesn't retain an attorney who has previously posted tweets about starting a coup against the president. 

the source is the ******* Presidents lawyer genius

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Oblong said:

the source is the ******* Presidents lawyer numb nuts.

You must have missed the part where it was in reference to an election that occurred 3 years ago...not the next election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, stanpapi said:

Good luck with the NYT opinion piece being your "evidence". And by the way, the next time you hand pick a "whistleblower", you also might want to make sure he doesn't retain an attorney who has previously posted tweets about starting a coup against the president. 

Remember that time you said there was no quid pro quo?  That was hilarious. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, pfife said:

Remember that time you said there was no quid pro quo?  That was hilarious. 

You're referring to this quid pro quo...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, pfife said:

Remember that time you said there was no quid pro quo?  That was hilarious. 

Stan: "Gordon Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, therefore there was no quid pro quo"

Gordon Sondland refreshes his memory

Stan: *crickets*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mtutiger said:

Stan: "Gordon Sondland said there was no quid pro quo, therefore there was no quid pro quo"

Gordon Sondland refreshes his memory

Stan: *crickets*

Oh, there's a reason I didn't respond to that. It was more unsourced hyperbole. Sondland said that he didn't know when, why or who suspended the aid. He said he ‘presumed’ there was a link to the aid and an investigation. But he could not provide testimony with any sourcing whatsoever that would support his assumption. So his testimony is the same as you saying it. You have no evidence for your assumption, either. 

The other thing is, Ukraine didn't open the investigation as a result of any of this, and it has been widely reported that they didn't even know the aid was actually held until weeks after the call. And the aid was ultimately released without them doing anything.

The general requirement for a quid pro quo is of course that the other side has to actually know they are being "quo'd". You know, like they knew it when Biden asked them to fire the prosector in 6 hours.

Keep trying.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am tired of hearing about quid pro quo.  In this country, we call it extortion.  

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tiger337 said:

I am tired of hearing about quid pro quo.  In this country, we call it extortion.  

This President is Corrupt all the way down to Cellular Level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...