Whistleblower identified

[Watermelon]

Actually Trump didn't come out with the no QPQ statement to Sondland until right after he realized that the extortion phone call to Zelensky was revealed, or in other words after he was CAUGHT. Also, we don't even know if such a call with a no QPQ statement was ever made to Sondland, since there are no records of any such call. Funny that, don't ya think?

Reports of Trump being briefed on the whistleblower report days before this call, if true, is pretty damaging to this.

[JimL]

Make up your mind. Are we believing the perjurer or not?

Which one, Sondland or Trump?

I was talking about the defense which hasn't changed. Trump always said that there was no QPQ.

By "always" do you mean to say, since he realized he got caught?

If all calls were transcribed they'd have subpoenaed them from the get go.

Right, and apparently there is no record of such a call. But if there was such a call, you know that Trump would, in his own defense, release it.

[JimL]

Reports of Trump being briefed on the whistleblower report days before this call, if true, is pretty damaging to this.

Yes, if such a call wherin Trump actually said "I want no quid pro quo" ever even took place.

[rogue06]

Yes, if such a call wherin Trump actually said "I want no quid pro quo" ever even took place.

According to the source that all the "witnesses" got their second and third hand hearsay from, it did.

[Teallaura]

Which one, Sondland or Trump?

You yourself called Sondland a perjurer.

By "always" do you mean to say, since he realized he got caught?

For some definition of caught that doesn't actually prove anything?

Right, and apparently there is no record of such a call. But if there was such a call, you know that Trump would, in his own defense, release it.

Record or transcript?
Why would he need to? The House would issue one of its 'subpoenas' and... Oh right, they don't want to try one of those in court...

[Teallaura]

According to the source that all the "witnesses" got their second and third hand hearsay from, it did.

This actually IS direct evidence from Sondland. If the call is in question so is all of the rest of his testimony!

[JimL]

You yourself called Sondland a perjurer.

Yes, just like Trump, until he got caught!

For some definition of caught that doesn't actually prove anything?

Yep, he got caught in his extortion scheme, the withholding of military aid until Zelensky announced on CNN that Ukraine was investigating Joe Biden, his political rival. Trump got caught, then he released the military aid package and supposedly made a phone call to Sondland saying "i want no quid pro quo".
Record or transcript?

Why would he need to? The House would issue one of its 'subpoenas' and... Oh right, they don't want to try one of those in court...

To prove his innocence, of course. But he's obstructing in every possible way rather than clearing himself. That should tell you something.

[JimL]

This actually IS direct evidence from Sondland. If the call is in question so is all of the rest of his testimony!

Yes, in question, but smart people can put 2 and 2 together and figure it out. Even Republicans in congress can, but of course, not caring about the Constitution or their country, they feign ignorance.

[rogue06]

Yes, in question, but smart people can put 2 and 2 together and figure it out.

Then explain why you and the rest of the TDS crowd keep arriving at "Q" for an answer?

[Teallaura]

Yes, just like Trump, until he got caught!


Yep, he got caught in his extortion scheme, the withholding of military aid until Zelensky announced on CNN that Ukraine was investigating Joe Biden, his political rival. Trump got caught, then he released the military aid package and supposedly made a phone call to Sondland saying "i want no quid pro quo".
Record or transcript?

To prove his innocence, of course. But he's obstructing in every possible way rather than clearing himself. That should tell you something.

No one got caught and the rest is just conjecture.

You only try that when a trial is after truth, not blood.

Your coup is failing.

[Teallaura]

Yes, in question, but smart people can put 2 and 2 together and figure it out. Even Republicans in congress can, but of course, not caring about the Constitution or their country, they feign ignorance.

Goes to credibility - and only stupid people accept the testimony of a liar.

[Tassman]

Goes to credibility - and only stupid people accept the testimony of a liar.

Then, presumably, you never accept the testimony of a pathological liar like Trump. "Entire fact-checking industries have been built around his penchant for basically never telling the truth".

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...p-mueller-lies

[rogue06]

Then, presumably, you never accept the testimony of a pathological liar like Trump. "Entire fact-checking industries have been built around his penchant for basically never telling the truth".

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019...p-mueller-lies

The same with virtually every president in the past few decades. But back then it was left to the crackpots on the fringe to send out newsletters, then fax and then emails (or get on some late night AM radio show) relating how, for instance, Obama "lied" when he said there were 57 states and the like. Now, however, it isn't the nutjob conspiracy theorists pushing this stuff but supposedly credible journalists, news outlets and high level politicians who are wearing the tinfoil hats.

Every one of these lists I've seen includes such things as exaggerations, hyperbole, figures of speech, metaphors, imprecise citation, rounding, obvious jokes, honest mistakes, differences of opinion etc. so as to to inflate the number of the supposed falsehoods^[1].

FWIU the largest percent of "lies" told by Trump according to a list concocted by the Washington Post concern his claim that he didn't collude with the Russians. Now that we know that was indeed the truth the WaPo is still refusing to remove them from his list of lies.

But then again, what do you expect from someone who... well,

The Washington Post has just provided an excellent example of just what sort of things get included into these various lists of "lies" that Trump tells that gets the left's knickers all in a bunch.

Yesterday Trump hosted the Clemson University's football team at the White House after they defeated Alabama at the College Football Playoff National Championship. Due to the partial government shutdown the White House kitchen staff has been furloughed so Trump went out and bought $3000 worth of fast food for them. What upset those afflicted with TDS at the Washington Post was Trump's statement that they had hamburgers stacked "a mile high." So they actually had what is painfully obviously a figure of speech fact checked to see if the hamburgers would literally be a mile high

Yup. You read that right. They actually fact checked it.

Their solemn conclusion? "At two inches each, a thousand burgers would not reach one mile high."

So this will now join the list of LIES! told by Trump

Similarly, during the last SOTU he said that a third ("one in three") of the women and girls illegally crossing the border end up getting sexually assaulted. Now according to Amnesty International the number is closer to 60% and one study even puts the number as high as 80%, but Politico and the Washington Post cited statistics indicating that the number is 31% so that they could proclaim that the statement is false. Talk about your nitpicking. It is almost a given that every past president and every politician has used "one-third" or "one-half" rather than a specific fraction or percentage, and walked away without being fact-checked but with Trump rounding off like that gets called another lie.

Trump constantly screws up and exaggerates. For him, like your typical New Yorker from Queens or the Bronx, everything is the biggest, the best, the greatest etc. (a characteristic also often associated with Texans) and he gets hammered for it as well.

And who can forget how CNN fact checked a joke by then press secretary Sean Spicer about Russian dressing? CNN would later say that it was a joke after being ridiculed for it but even if^[2] true it really does exemplify the climate.










1. Don't get me wrong, Trump (much like the vast majority of politicians) does tell more than his fair share of indisputable whoppers.

2. Given that this is the same network that once actually had Wolf Blitzer investigating a SNL comedy skit for daring to criticize the Obamamessiah, it is hard to overestimate their partisanship

[oxmixmudd]

Goes to credibility - and only stupid people accept the testimony of a liar.

Especially when he's been lying everyday non-stop for the last 3 years ...

[oxmixmudd]

The same with virtually every president in the past few decades. But back then it was left to the crackpots on the fringe to send out newsletters, then fax and then emails (or get on some late night AM radio show) relating how, for instance, Obama "lied" when he said there were 57 states and the like. Now, however, it isn't the nutjob conspiracy theorists pushing this stuff but supposedly credible journalists, news outlets and high level politicians who are wearing the tinfoil hats.

Every one of these lists I've seen includes such things as exaggerations, hyperbole, figures of speech, metaphors, imprecise citation, rounding, obvious jokes, honest mistakes, differences of opinion etc. so as to to inflate the number of the supposed falsehoods^[1].

FWIU the largest percent of "lies" told by Trump according to a list concocted by the Washington Post concern his claim that he didn't collude with the Russians. Now that we know that was indeed the truth the WaPo is still refusing to remove them from his list of lies.

But then again, what do you expect from someone who... well,

Similarly, during the last SOTU he said that a third ("one in three") of the women and girls illegally crossing the border end up getting sexually assaulted. Now according to Amnesty International the number is closer to 60% and one study even puts the number as high as 80%, but Politico and the Washington Post cited statistics indicating that the number is 31% so that they could proclaim that the statement is false. Talk about your nitpicking. It is almost a given that every past president and every politician has used "one-third" or "one-half" rather than a specific fraction or percentage, and walked away without being fact-checked but with Trump rounding off like that gets called another lie.

Trump constantly screws up and exaggerates. For him, like your typical New Yorker from Queens or the Bronx, everything is the biggest, the best, the greatest etc. (a characteristic also often associated with Texans) and he gets hammered for it as well.

And who can forget how CNN fact checked a joke by then press secretary Sean Spicer about Russian dressing? CNN would later say that it was a joke after being ridiculed for it but even if^[2] true it really does exemplify the climate.










1. Don't get me wrong, Trump (much like the vast majority of politicians) does tell more than his fair share of indisputable whoppers.

2. Given that this is the same network that once actually had Wolf Blitzer investigating a SNL comedy skit for daring to criticize the Obamamessiah, it is hard to overestimate their partisanship

No rogue. Not the same. Not even close to the same. There is no reasonable way for anyone to claim Trump's penchant for lying can be matched or excused by the behavior of any previous president in our lifetimes. A man who kills once out of fear or even anger is not the same as a serial killer with hundreds of bodies buried or cut up. And that is the sort of - for lack of a kinder word - inane comparison you are trying to make

Do you guys ever take a step back and ask 'why am I trying to minimize these things Trump does?' Most of you would not be caught dead making these arguments on behalf of any other person.