Norman Paperman
Footballguy
Mom is always right. Even if Mom is wrong - mom is right.Which one is mixed up though? This is like when you ask mom and dad the same question and get 2 different answers.
Mom is always right. Even if Mom is wrong - mom is right.Which one is mixed up though? This is like when you ask mom and dad the same question and get 2 different answers.
100% no quid quo pro. His testimony supports that theory.squistion said:Still think there was no quid pro quo?
The New York Times @nytimes 2h2 hours ago
Breaking News: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said the U.S. froze aid partly to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats. He undercut President Trump's denials of a quid pro quo.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/us/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-news.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimes#link-55fe453b
Theory?100% no quid quo pro. His testimony supports that theory.
This simply isn't trueMulvaney was point person in the whole thing and he just got up and testified that both were the causes of the demand for Ukraine to obligate itself to get the delivery of matériel they were already owed. The hilarious thing is the point he walked back was the one they feel they are safe about.
He hasn’t testified and he won’t.100% no quid quo pro. His testimony supports that theory.
I’m referring to Sondland’s and Yovanovitch’s testimonies about Mulvaney being point.This simply isn't true
On national TV, get over itHe hasn’t testified and he won’t.
I am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.Theory?
Maybe you missed the news conference yesterday, Mulvaney admitted Trump ordered the code red to the whole world.
I wouldn't have dumbed it down and would have cut out the second part to see who got it. Would've been a nice slow build during a pause.James Mattis goes there:
"I earned my spurs on the battlefield ... and Donald Trump earned his spurs in a letter from a doctor."
Shot it down? Wow, that's definitely a different take than what he ACTUALY said!I am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.
Yes- holding aid to influence immigration laws- acceptable even if I don’t agree with it. Withholding aid to try to generate negative headlines for your top political rival, not ok.By the way...I tend to agree with Mulvaney that there is going to be political influence in foreign policy. I appreciate his carefully crafted phrasing. It's the "state something true that isn't on topic" approach. The issue is foreign INTERFERENCE in our ELECTORAL PROCESS....always has been an issue...always will be an issue.
"The money was held up temporarily, OK? Three issues for that: the corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in support of the Ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice."I am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.Theory?
Maybe you missed the news conference yesterday, Mulvaney admitted Trump ordered the code red to the whole world.
Hey man, what you’re seeing and what you’re hearing is not what’s happening.Shot it down? Wow, that's definitely a different take than what he ACTUALY said!
I used to think that Trump supporters and the rest of us lived in different countries. Now I have to wonder if it isn’t different planets, or even universes.I am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.
"Agree to disagree"I used to think that Trump supporters and the rest of us lived in different countries. Now I have to wonder if it isn’t different planets, or even universes.I am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.
This is not a case of Rashoman. By that I mean this is not a case in which two reasonable people could watch the same event and come away with two very different interpretations of what occurred. Simply put, one cannot be a rational person and reach the conclusion you are claiming to have reached.
FalsehoodI am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.
Not spin at all. I am talking about if there was quid quo pro in regards to military aid to Ukraine for Biden investigation. Mulvaney shot that theory down and said no quid pro quo."The money was held up temporarily, OK? Three issues for that: the corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in support of the Ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice."
1. When Mulvaney admitted that the money was held up, he was admitting to a quid pro quo.
2. when Mulvaney referred to an "ongoing investigation with our DOJ", he was referring to Trump's request to Zelenskyy, "whatever you can do with the Attorney General [regarding the Bidens] would be great."
There's no other way to spin that.
Wrong. He specifically denied any quid pro quo with military aid and Biden investigation. Quit reading media as they are biased and try and spin falsehoods.Falsehood
You should really pay better attention to details.Shot it down? Wow, that's definitely a different take than what he ACTUALY said!
I feel the same way about you guys so I don't know what to tell you. I come hear and am constantly amazed at what you guys believe.I used to think that Trump supporters and the rest of us lived in different countries. Now I have to wonder if it isn’t different planets, or even universes.
This is not a case of Rashoman. By that I mean this is not a case in which two reasonable people could watch the same event and come away with two very different interpretations of what occurred. Simply put, one cannot be a rational person and reach the conclusion you are claiming to have reached.
The precedent they are setting is going to be awesome to watch when the shoe is on the other foot. But I'm sure they'll be able to wiggle out of it and find some reason it is different this time given their lack of a backbone.Mike Walker@New_Narrative
Departing Energy Secretary Rick Perry says he's not sure he'll comply with subpoena in impeachment inquiry
This is what makes America great! Subpoenas are optional!
Yea - shot himself in the footI am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.
You don't do anything with them....you focus on others actively engaged and you focus on getting more people actively engaged.What are we to do with this? The polls suggest there are nearly 40 million people in this country who “think” the way Don’t Noonan does. What are we to do with them? It’s a question that I’ve asked myself, with no good answer, since November of 2016.
Obviously the correct answer is to vote in 2020 who you prefer and not try and illegally oust a rightfully elected President.What are we to do with this? The polls suggest there are nearly 40 million people in this country who “think” the way Don’t Noonan does. What are we to do with them? It’s a question that I’ve asked myself, with no good answer, since November of 2016.
Divorce. Admit this isn't working and split this country and everyone move on with their lives.What are we to do with this? The polls suggest there are nearly 40 million people in this country who “think” the way Don’t Noonan does. What are we to do with them? It’s a question that I’ve asked myself, with no good answer, since November of 2016.
Mulvaney already admitted that the money was held up. That's proof of the "quid" right there.Not spin at all. I am talking about if there was quid quo pro in regards to military aid to Ukraine for Biden investigation. Mulvaney shot that theory down and said no quid pro quo."The money was held up temporarily, OK? Three issues for that: the corruption in the country, whether or not other countries were participating in support of the Ukraine and whether or not they were cooperating in an ongoing investigation with our Department of Justice."
1. When Mulvaney admitted that the money was held up, he was admitting to a quid pro quo.
2. when Mulvaney referred to an "ongoing investigation with our DOJ", he was referring to Trump's request to Zelenskyy, "whatever you can do with the Attorney General [regarding the Bidens] would be great."
There's no other way to spin that.
Well, good chance you lose to them like in 2016.You don't do anything with them....you focus on others actively engaged and you focus on getting more people actively engaged.
Stop indulging them would be a good start.What are we to do with this? The polls suggest there are nearly 40 million people in this country who “think” the way Don’t Noonan does. What are we to do with them? It’s a question that I’ve asked myself, with no good answer, since November of 2016.
The last sentence is particularly funny especially considering your crystal clear bias and spin. There is not a ounce of question in my mind that if Trump had a D next to his name instead of an R you would be roasting him to no ends. Your glasses are so tinted rose they blot out the sun.Wrong. He specifically denied any quid pro quo with military aid and Biden investigation. Quit reading media as they are biased and try and spin falsehoods.
Impeachment is illegal?Obviously the correct answer is to vote in 2020 who you prefer and not try and illegally oust a rightfully elected President.
No. Help with server on 2016 election interference. The phone call transcript shows Trump asking him to comply with Barr's investigation.Mulvaney already admitted that the money was held up. That's proof of the "quid" right there.
Mulvaney already admitted that the money was held up to get cooperation on a DOJ investigation. That's proof of the "quo" right there.
And we already know that the "DOJ investigation" refers to the Bidens, because Trump said so in the phone call with Zelenskyy.
"you" as in me? "you" as in who?Well, good chance you lose to them like in 2016.
If Trump were to be impeached and removed by this yes. Country would revolt.Impeachment is illegal?
well, to some processes allowed by the Constitution are also a "coup" so this isn't a big stretch for themImpeachment is illegal?
"The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."No. Help with server on 2016 election interference. The phone call transcript shows Trump asking him to comply with Barr's investigation.Mulvaney already admitted that the money was held up. That's proof of the "quid" right there.
Mulvaney already admitted that the money was held up to get cooperation on a DOJ investigation. That's proof of the "quo" right there.
And we already know that the "DOJ investigation" refers to the Bidens, because Trump said so in the phone call with Zelenskyy.
Ari Flieischer disagrees with you in the article at Foxnews.com:Wrong. He specifically denied any quid pro quo with military aid and Biden investigation. Quit reading media as they are biased and try and spin falsehoods.
It is obvious that Dems are so afraid of losing to Trump again in 2020 and have no confidence in any of the schmucks running now that their best chance is to try and make up enough conspiracy theories to try and oust the President. Russia hoax failed and here is attempt 2.The last sentence is particularly funny especially considering your crystal clear bias and spin. There is not a ounce of question in my mind that if Trump had a D next to his name instead of an R you would be roasting him to no ends. Your glasses are so tinted rose they blot out the sun.
Nope. Not related at all. Sorry."The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it."
Trump is asking Zelensky to cooperate with a DOJ investigation right there. And that DOJ investigation involves the Bidens.
You can't separate the requests, no matter how hard you try.
Define revolt?If Trump were to be impeached and removed by this yes. Country would revolt.
lol every once a while I slip up and forget you're just trollin'I am talking about his news conference yesterday where he shot down the quid pro quo theory.
You have to understand the server issue is different than investigating Biden. Looking into 2016 past election interference is perfectly fine. Hillary did everything possible to try and hide what was on her server. Why is that?Ari Flieischer disagrees with you in the article at Foxnews.com:
Mulvaney seemed to contradict President Trump’s claim that there was no “quid pro quo” during his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky, by telling reporters at the White House Thursday that the release of military aid to Ukraine was tied to the administration’s demands that Kiev investigate purported corruption by the Democrats during the 2016 presidential election campaign.
The scramble for everyone to get their stories straight is fun to watch. To paraphrase Judge Judy, when the story doesn't make sense, someone's lying.
Hmm, aren't we cracking down on false posts? I'm not sure how this isn't dishonest.Nope. Not related at all. Sorry.
Paging @RiverscoDefine revolt?
As a country, we can't seem to take action on a number of very pressing issues like climate change, homelessness, etc. What makes you think a lazy population is going to revolt?