Uhm… I screenshotted this from one of the videos from Fox. Did they complete fabricate this exchange? I don’t have time to look further into it.
No. I think it’s legit. The defense is that if you say “no quid pro quo” once you realize all your crimes are in texts, then everybody’s innocent.
2 Likes
Let’s be clear, I’m not threatening you with death, but boy it would sure be a great idea for you to give me your wallet.
3 Likes
also the time stamps are withheld. the conversation was back and forth with barely minutes in between texts until that blue text from the ambassador, then sondland responded the NEXT DAY with that gray text… totally not criminal. completely cleared ourselves.
It just seems batshit insane to me that people would converse like that. Especially if you have no fear of being caught…they were using Whatsapp so clarifying specifically with NO QUID PRO QUO seems fake as fuck.
I saw Bill Weld with his Weld 2020 gear today dipping his toe in the water at a street fair in NH.
The Republic is saved!
1 Like
According to Chris Hayes, there was a 5-hr gap before the “totally not quid pro quo” from Sondland, and WH records show a call from Sondland to Trump during that gap.
1 Like
Calling WH to confirm no quid pro quo obv.
2 Likes
It’s a maddening defense. Even if he’s sincere, saying something like “But I’m not the sort of person who would mean to do that” is entirely missing the point, and yet talking about the impact of their choices is meaningless to people who believe their intent is all that matters.
Wonder how Mitten’s Saturday is going.
Probably just got done with some dressage and now going through one of his many binders full of women.
1 Like
Depends on which stage of Reek he’s in, but I’m hoping
That’s a visual effect, so no. There might be a couple of other people like the talented photoshopper Risky Flush who might be able to do that.
He was required to respond to a subpoena by yesterday. He said he would ‘respond’ by the date, but I heard no additional reporting on this yesterday. My understanding is that he’s out of the country. Even if he complied with the subpoena, I’m not sure we would be told. It’s more likely we would be told if he didn’t.
He’s a national security threat, and is actively undermining national security. GOP, the people who consider themselves the end all be all of national security sit around with their thumbs up their butts.
I’m gonna help you out here, since you seem so willfully obtuse. At no point have I called you a ‘sleeper GOP cell’. I have said on numerous occasions that you are spewing exact GOP talking points and/or narratives on this site. If you come to your conclusions honestly, it doesn’t give you more weight that every time something like this is talked about that you end up on the side of people doing mental gymnastics to explain away impeachable conduct.
Remember, if you’re a defense attorney, you have no burden of proof. That’s how you argue on this site. You spew stuff that a prosecutor could never get a conviction on but that defense attorneys can use at will to successfully push away from the actual crime to look anywhere else. Defense attorneys are allowed to claim their client was framed, to blame the victim, whatever, while never talking about the crime or the incriminating evidence the defendant has provided themselves. This is considered ‘good’ defense work, because it keeps the jury’s eye off the ball. That’s what the GOP is doing. They want you to look anywhere else, and you agree to look where they want nearly every time, using their exact points.
As for your other part, I think you grossly misunderstand the backgrounds that most of the loudest hand wringing posters have. Maybe you do this out of a position of honesty that you don’t actually know. Maybe you are blatantly misrepresenting some of the core posters on this site, because you don’t think I know better.
I’ll make this quick. A significant amount of posters here have either GOP parents or for sure used to vote GOP before it became untenable. Those have all talked about their parents being vociferous rabid anti-Democrats who listened to Rush or whatever. Some of them have even admitted listening to that stuff themselves. They still direct all of that hate right at Dems, so nothing’s changed. I can give a certain amount of a list if you’d like, but I’m like 90 percent certain that the poster you’re criticizing as ‘the mean Dem voter’ or whatever it is you’re claiming (Jman) is a reformed former GOP voter, and probably fairly recently.
When you start to realize that this place isn’t representative of anything in the real world, it will make you better off. I would guess 90 to 95 percent of this site is for impeachment. Polls don’t get anywhere near that, even among Democrats. Most of this site is for Warren or Sanders, and the hate is almost universal for Biden, even among people who are not in the Warren or Sanders camp. This does not track with the real world at all (money Democrats absolutely hate Warren and Sanders).
Finally, keep in mind that there is nothing wrong with being a reformed GOP, even though it means I will de-weight your opinion quite a bit when the criticism is so heavy of the Dems, with practically no realistic advice of how to fix the problems that are baked into our system. If you do it like former GOP Elizabeth Warren, you can be president as a Democrat (note how she doesn’t attack Dems for weakness like this site does). If you do it like most of the people here do it, you’re just bomb throwers that are not representative of the vast number of members of the Democratic Party. Nancy’s not right about what the Democratic Party is either, so there’s that.
Welcome to being in the far left wing of the Democratic Party for the last 50 years. We have had no voice until very recently. Now that we have one, many of you want to throw that away like how the Tea Party burned down the GOP. The goals of most here are not really possible until probably 2032 at the earliest, and even that’s not likely. I’d love to see some positive energy exchanged on this site for a change. Trump is in a lake of fire right now, along with many of his closest sycophants, and you want us to look at Biden. That’s what the GOP wants, and that’s why it’s a problem.
This is bonkers.
I have no idea why you assume these guys are standard bearers. Because they spewed hot fire on certain things, they got fans. Then they defended Barr, and got embarrassed. Now they’re doing this, and they’re embarrassed. To get to be a top US Attorney, you gotta play the political game. When you say, ‘they’re complicit’, these types are the ones you should be talking about. That’s how they gained power outside of the political system…by not rocking it.
This is the clearest evidence yet that the GOP is talking about Mitt as the replacement president behind closed doors.
Trump has the absolute worst lawyers in history. I hope most (all) of them end up disbarred. Their briefs are patently idiotic and I’m not even a lawyer.
No one really talks about this, but the process is that contempt goes to court. In like 99 percent of cases that go to court (exception is maybe Holder’s contempt that he won like 4 or 5 years later) there is not a ruling (the parties settle to give the info before any trial, but that does not appear to be happening here).
The problem in this case isn’t lying. It’s that they don’t produce what’s required, and/or they refuse to testify. Fines are the proper procedure here. Pulling funding for their department is the answer, but then you have more undermining of the undermining of the country.
We’re on a whole different level right now, so you have no idea what they’ll do. In May, they were all hemming and hawing about inherent contempt (some wanted it, but it wasn’t going to happen without leadership backing). Leadership is now talking about it. The scandal we’re in right now is when people start producing, because it’s falling apart. The people who have been scared to come out are coming out, because it’s not going away, and these people are not protected from prosecution like the president (Pompeo’s terrible gamble is thinking he’s like the prez). The rules are changing, and inherent contempt might not be necessary anymore with the sheer amount of whistleblowers we’re probably going to get. The whistleblowers will likely be providing the evidence that leads to the impeachment of the officials who are obstructing and covering up crimes they should be reporting.
I’m confident you’re misinterpreting this. He likely means that Romney could have won if he worked harder when he was running (he’s calling him lazy). He didn’t mean election interference, because Romney wasn’t president and couldn’t have used any similar power.
Can Congress appoint a Special Counsel about a matter (they appointed the one for Nixon), or can they only refer a case to the respective department’s Inspector General?
1 Like
1 Like
Thanks for the compliments on my Photoshop skills, nunnehi. Might have to look elsewhere for video editing. I just mess around with still shots and don’t have the tools (or expertise) to overlay animated images, but maybe one day 
1 Like
No, it doesn’t.