If the Republicans take back the house should they impeach Biden?

[Slyfox696]

Right. YOU cited the guy, I showed his sworn testimony

No, you did not show his full sworn testimony. His sworn testimony was that there was a quid pro quo, that Ukraine's wants would only be met if they did want Trump wanted.

That is Sondland's sworn testimony.

, then you claim he is a liar.

No, I'm showing that you are posting lies about what Sondland said.

Quote the part where you think Trump told Zelensky he wouldn’t get aid unless he found dirt on Biden.

Don't be dishonest, you know what Trump said and you know Trump refused to release the aid to Ukraine until his demands were met (or, as it happened, until the whistleblower went public). We both know your game here. You're going to try and pretend the fact that Trump couched his language meant he didn't say EXACTLY what everyone (including Zelenskyy) knew he was saying and what his actions showed he meant.

Everyone knows what Trump did. Everyone knows what "I would like you to do us a favor" meant, especially since the "favor" being requested was in no way of any benefit to the United States, but only to Donald Trump himself (and, to a lesser extent, Russia).

 

[VanceMack]

No, you did not show his full sworn testimony. His sworn testimony was that there was a quid pro quo, that Ukraine's wants would only be met if they did want Trump wanted.

That is Sondland's sworn testimony.

No, I'm showing that you are posting lies about what Sondland said.

Don't be dishonest, you know what Trump said and you know Trump refused to release the aid to Ukraine until his demands were met (or, as it happened, until the whistleblower went public). We both know your game here. You're going to try and pretend the fact that Trump couched his language meant he didn't say EXACTLY what everyone (including Zelenskyy) knew he was saying and what his actions showed he meant.

Everyone knows what Trump did. Everyone knows what "I would like you to do us a favor" meant, especially since the "favor" being requested was in no way of any benefit to the United States, but only to Donald Trump himself (and, to a lesser extent, Russia).

And yet when called on it DIRECTLY...not his interpretation...(you know...what you want to hear and what you choose to believe) when asked DIRECTLY about his ACTUAL conversation with the President where there is NO ROOM for interpretation, he admits that there was no coercion. They all did.

You embrace lies because it feeds your pathetic hatred. And you know it.

 

[Ouroboros]

That hasn't happened.

So there is that.

Same old Mad Lib response: “Things that don’t affect me don’t exist!”

 

[Ouroboros]

No, you did not show his full sworn testimony. His sworn testimony was that there was a quid pro quo, that Ukraine's wants would only be met if they did want Trump wanted.

That is Sondland's sworn testimony.

No, I'm showing that you are posting lies about what Sondland said.

Don't be dishonest, you know what Trump said and you know Trump refused to release the aid to Ukraine until his demands were met (or, as it happened, until the whistleblower went public). We both know your game here. You're going to try and pretend the fact that Trump couched his language meant he didn't say EXACTLY what everyone (including Zelenskyy) knew he was saying and what his actions showed he meant.

Everyone knows what Trump did. Everyone knows what "I would like you to do us a favor" meant, especially since the "favor" being requested was in no way of any benefit to the United States, but only to Donald Trump himself (and, to a lesser extent, Russia).

Can you even quote a section of the call in which DT told Z that he DT had put a hold on aid (which I think lasted about a day)?

The victim of extortion kinda needs to know he’s being extorted, and Z testified that he had no such knowledge.

 

[LouC]

Same old Mad Lib response: “Things that don’t affect me don’t exist!”

 

[Peter]

So nothing about being fair and all? Payback is a bitch.

Governments should not be run by schoolyard rules and "Payback" should not be a consideration.
If that's the reason they will try and empeach a President then Republicans are completely lost to madness and childish political games.

 

[Slyfox696]

And yet when called on it DIRECTLY...not his interpretation...(you know...what you want to hear and what you choose to believe) when asked DIRECTLY about his ACTUAL conversation with the President where there is NO ROOM for interpretation, he admits that there was no coercion.

Who admits that? Because it wasn't Sondland. Sondland said there absolutely was a quid pro quo. So who are you talking about?

They all did.

Do I need to repost Sondland's words in every post so you'll stop posting lies about them?

You embrace lies because it feeds your pathetic hatred. And you know it.

I'm posting Gordon Sondland's exact words from the last testimony he gave. You're posting lies about them because your partisanship demands the lies.

 

[VanceMack]

Who admits that? Because it wasn't Sondland. Sondland said there absolutely was a quid pro quo. So who are you talking about?

Do I need to repost Sondland's words in every post so you'll stop posting lies about them?

I'm posting Gordon Sondland's exact words from the last testimony he gave. You're posting lies about them because your partisanship demands the lies.

Actually his exact words were that when he spoke DIRECTLY with the president about his intent, the answer was UNEQUIVOCALLY that there be NO quid pro quo. His words coming directly from his mouth. None of the mealy mouthed bullshit...his own exact words. And you saw them...literally coming from his mouth...and ignored it and said...no...but...but...he said...there WAS....

So...your claim is that your boy is a liar...and that supports your position.

How fitting.

 

[Slyfox696]

Can you even quote a section of the call in which DT told Z that he DT had put a hold on aid (which I think lasted about a day)?

The fact the aid hadn't been released shows that Trump was holding the aid.

Are you serious with this right here? Because this is just plain stupid.

The victim of extortion kinda needs to know he’s being extorted, and Z testified that he had no such knowledge.

"Testified"? When did he "testify" to this? Not that it matters, as I said, because we all see what Trump said and what Trump did and how Trump did it only for himself and not for the country.

 

[Slyfox696]

Actually his exact words were that when he spoke DIRECTLY with the president about his intent, the answer was UNEQUIVOCALLY that there be NO quid pro quo. His words coming directly from his mouth. None of the mealy mouthed bullshit...his own exact words.

OH! So Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, said it so it MUST be true. Because Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, would NEVER lie about something after he caught doing it. Ever. It's just not who the man is.



I cannot believe you just tried to suggest the word of Donald Trump is all anyone needs to know.

And you saw them...literally coming from his mouth.

Yes and then I saw the words from Sondland's mouth where he explicitly states there 100% was a quid pro quo.

So, who to believe? Donald Trump, the man who lies all the time and would be the one to face consequences of his actions or....every other piece of evidence (Sondland's testimony, the phone call outline, the fact aid was not released, the fact Trump himself said he was sending RudyG to Ukraine, etc.)?

Geez, it's a really tough one for those of us who are not consumed with partisan hackery...

..and ignored it and said...no...but...but...he said...there WAS....

Why are you typing like you're having a stroke?

So...your claim is that your boy is a liar...and that supports your position.

Sondland is not my boy. Do you really not remember how we got on this? You claimed Sondland was a "left" piece of garbage and I rightfully laughed at you for saying something so stupid.

Sondland is not my boy. He was Trump's boy. And even Trump's boy said that Trump was extorting Ukraine. But, hey, Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, said it didn't happen and that's good enough for you.

How fitting.

Imagine your entire defense resting on the argument that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth about something when he was caught having done something he shouldn't have done. That's literally your argument here.

 

[highroller]

He will be impeached within a month and then three times in the first year

 

[VanceMack]

OH! So Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, said it so it MUST be true. Because Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, would NEVER lie about something after he caught doing it. Ever. It's just not who the man is.



I cannot believe you just tried to suggest the word of Donald Trump is all anyone needs to know.

Yes and then I saw the words from Sondland's mouth where he explicitly states there 100% was a quid pro quo.

So, who to believe? Donald Trump, the man who lies all the time and would be the one to face consequences of his actions or....every other piece of evidence (Sondland's testimony, the phone call outline, the fact aid was not released, the fact Trump himself said he was sending RudyG to Ukraine, etc.)?

Geez, it's a really tough one for those of us who are not consumed with partisan hackery...

Why are you typing like you're having a stroke?

Sondland is not my boy. Do you really not remember how we got on this? You claimed Sondland was a "left" piece of garbage and I rightfully laughed at you for saying something so stupid.

Sondland is not my boy. He was Trump's boy. And even Trump's boy said that Trump was extorting Ukraine. But, hey, Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, said it didn't happen and that's good enough for you.

Imagine your entire defense resting on the argument that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth about something when he was caught having done something he shouldn't have done. That's literally your argument here.

That was sure a long way to avoid admitting your source is seen under oath in his own words admitting his direct conversation with the president showed NO room for misinterpretation...that there was NO coercion...no quid pro quo...and since that shits on your story you well...posted THAT drivel.

Your star witness under oath testified that TRUMP DIRECTLY stated NO QUID PRO QUO.

But you prefer the lie so you continue.

 

[VanceMack]

OH! So Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, said it so it MUST be true. Because Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, would NEVER lie about something after he caught doing it. Ever. It's just not who the man is.



I cannot believe you just tried to suggest the word of Donald Trump is all anyone needs to know.

Yes and then I saw the words from Sondland's mouth where he explicitly states there 100% was a quid pro quo.

So, who to believe? Donald Trump, the man who lies all the time and would be the one to face consequences of his actions or....every other piece of evidence (Sondland's testimony, the phone call outline, the fact aid was not released, the fact Trump himself said he was sending RudyG to Ukraine, etc.)?

Geez, it's a really tough one for those of us who are not consumed with partisan hackery...

Why are you typing like you're having a stroke?

Sondland is not my boy. Do you really not remember how we got on this? You claimed Sondland was a "left" piece of garbage and I rightfully laughed at you for saying something so stupid.

Sondland is not my boy. He was Trump's boy. And even Trump's boy said that Trump was extorting Ukraine. But, hey, Donald Trump, the well known serial liar, said it didn't happen and that's good enough for you.

Imagine your entire defense resting on the argument that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth about something when he was caught having done something he shouldn't have done. That's literally your argument here.

Here's MORE of your boy lying. Caught in his lies. The lies you EAGERLY swallow...because their lies fit your narrative.



YOUR star witness admits he lied...that there WAS NO COERCION...and all he had to go in despite his numerous conversations with everyone from Trump to Pompeo to Giuliani was HIS PERCEPTION.

 

[Slyfox696]

That was sure a long way to avoid admitting your source is seen under oath in his own words admitting his direct conversation with the president showed NO room for misinterpretation..

Again, imagine dismissing every other piece of important evidence available and resting your entire argument on the idea that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth about something he caught doing that he should not have been doing.

 

[VanceMack]

Again, imagine dismissing every other piece of important evidence available and resting your entire argument on the idea that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth about something he caught doing that he should not have been doing.

Oh yes...I completely dismiss all of your bullshit because the facts shit on them...why should I comment on them?

Vindman lied and got caught under oath. Sondland got completely ****ing shredded under oath. And yet...YOU still swallow the bullshit and lies because it fits your pathetic hatred. Speaks poorly of them...far worse of you.

 

[Slyfox696]

Oh yes...I completely dismiss all of your bullshit because the facts shit on them...why should I comment on them?

Why should you comment on the fact the ambassador to the EU explicitly stated there was a quid pro quo? Why should you comment on the fact the call outline showed Trump conditioning US assistance to do Trump a favor? Why should you comment on the fact aid was withheld until Ukraine agreed to do what Trump wanted (or, as it turns out, until the whistleblower went public)? Why should you comment on the fact Trump publicly stated RudyG was going to Ukraine for the exact reason he told Zelenskyy RudyG was going to Ukraine?

I don't know...honesty? Integrity? Objectivity? For all the things you've shown little interest in?

 

[tres borrachos]

Defaming Kyle Rittenhouse and the border guards.

Both show that he’s interfered cub in the course of justice and so overstepped the prerogatives of his office.

Yes, then the Republicans can impeach Trump (again) for defaming Ted Cruz's father and Joe Scarborough, right?

Kyle Rittenhouse. Who are the idiots going to worship when that little turd is dead?

 

[VanceMack]

Why should you comment on the fact the ambassador to the EU explicitly stated there was a quid pro quo? Why should you comment on the fact the call outline showed Trump conditioning US assistance to do Trump a favor? Why should you comment on the fact aid was withheld until Ukraine agreed to do what Trump wanted (or, as it turns out, until the whistleblower went public)? Why should you comment on the fact Trump publicly stated RudyG was going to Ukraine for the exact reason he told Zelenskyy RudyG was going to Ukraine?

I don't know...honesty? Integrity? Objectivity? For all the things you've shown little interest in?

Did your computer catch fire when you typed that last line?



Watch the video.


“No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?”,

Sondland “Yes.”

“So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.”

Sondland:“Other than my own presumption.”

You all swallowed giant spoonfulls of shit. Eagerly.

 

[Taylor]

Nope. We need to put adults back in charge. "What would Pelosi do?" is the last thing they should be asking themselves.

 

[Slyfox696]

Did your computer catch fire when you typed that last line?

No, it did give me an old-fashioned though.

Watch the video.

Read the direct testimony. Note that the facts 100% support the quid pro quo. And stop posting lies.

 

[LouC]

Governments should not be run by schoolyard rules and "Payback" should not be a consideration.
If that's the reason they will try and empeach a President then Republicans are completely lost to madness and childish political games.

Agreed. But that is all good reasoning for both sides to held to.

 

[VanceMack]

No, it did give me an old-fashioned though.

Read the direct testimony. Note that the facts 100% support the quid pro quo. And stop posting lies.

THAT IS the direct testimony. That is LITERALLY the video of his testimony. He literally stated under oath that no one EVER told him there should be quid pro quo...that it was nothing more than his presumption...and you swallowed it because you WANT it desperately to be true.

 

[Slyfox696]

THAT IS the direct testimony.

The direct testimony is that there 100% was a quid pro quo. Correct?

That is LITERALLY the video of his testimony. He literally stated under oath that no one EVER told him there should be quid pro quo.

The fact you think this matters when it was clear (to me, Sondland, Zelenskyy, America) is hilarious.

So what you're saying is if I'm employing a young lady to work for me and only give her a paycheck if she performs oral sex on me, as long as I don't say the words "I'll only give you your check if you perform oral sex on me", then it's completely cool and VanceMack has absolutely no reason to possibly ever think her receiving her check was conditioned on performing sexual favors?

The idiocy of your argument HAS to be apparent to you. No one is this ate up with partisanship to believe the things you're saying. The only question then becomes why are you posting such blatantly dishonest things? Again, your entire argument rests on the idea that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth.

 

[VanceMack]

The direct testimony is that there 100% was a quid pro quo. Correct?

The fact you think this matters when it was clear (to me, Sondland, Zelenskyy, America) is hilarious.

So what you're saying is if I'm employing a young lady to work for me and only give her a paycheck if she performs oral sex on me, as long as I don't say the words "I'll only give you your check if you perform oral sex on me", then it's completely cool and VanceMack has absolutely no reason to possibly ever think her receiving her check was conditioned on performing sexual favors?

The idiocy of your argument HAS to be apparent to you. No one is this ate up with partisanship to believe the things you're saying. The only question then becomes why are you posting such blatantly dishonest things? Again, your entire argument rests on the idea that Donald Trump, the well-known serial liar, was telling the truth.

His direct testimony shits all over your claims...yet you are STILL blathering on.

Your hatred makes you un-serious.

 

[Slyfox696]

His direct testimony shits all over your claims...yet you are STILL blathering on

Your hatred makes you un-serious.

His direct testimony is there 100% was a quid pro quo. Your argument in response is that a well known serial liar was telling the truth this time after getting caught doing something he shouldn't have done.

We can let others decide who is not being serious here. The person who is using facts and direct testimony or the person who is choosing to believe the well known serial liar who got caught doing something he shouldn't have done.