Sondland admits quid pro quo

[Cow Poke]

How many times have people on this board gone ballistic of the idea someone else is trying to intuit their motives? The phrase usually used is "your mind reading powers are failing you" or something similar.

Jim, surely you understand that making a comment like "your mind reading powers are failing you" is not a very good example of people "going ballistic", yes?

[oxmixmudd]

Jim, surely you understand that making a comment like "your mind reading powers are failing you" is not a very good example of people "going ballistic", yes?

That is usually not all that is said CP. And you are one of the worst for freaking out and throwing a fit if I describe your position on virtually anything in a way you feel is inaccurate. Well how would you react if I said the only thing motivating your comments was hatred. Exactly how well would that go over. One might think, as offended as you get if I get it wrong, you would recognize that improperly characterizing my motives is something you would not wish to do - and yet I don't notice you respecting my accounting of why I do what I do, or holding back on pontificating on why I do what I do.

[rogue06]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]40739[/ATTACH]

I'm starting to think you are simply not getting enough oxygen what with your incessant inhaling of giggle smoke.

[Cow Poke]

That is usually not all that is said CP.

But that's the example you chose to illustrate your accusation.

And you are one of the worst for freaking out and throwing a fit if I describe your position on virtually anything in a way you feel is inaccurate.

"freaking out"? Jim, just because you appear to stay in a rage over Trump doesn't mean others are "freaking out" or "going ballistic".

Well how would you react if I said the only thing motivating your comments was hatred.

Same way I've been reacting, Jim. By trying to reason with you, and the same way I have moderated my responses to JimL. I pretend you're sitting across the table from me, realizing you would NEVER say some of the things you say - like calling me a liar - if we were face to face.

Exactly how well would that go over. One might think, as offended as you get if I get it wrong,

And, there you go again, with the "offended as you get". Jim -- you're like the man who cheats on his wife, so he assumes she must be cheating as well. I'm not the least bit angry, "ballistic", "offended".... I promise you, Jim, that has got to be in your own head.

Then, again, you could just call me a liar again.

you would recognize that improperly characterizing my motives is something you would not wish to do - and yet I don't notice you respecting my accounting of why I do what I do, or holding back on pontificating on why I do what I do.

[Mountain Man]

How many times have people on this board gone ballistic of the idea someone else is trying to intuit their motives? The phrase usually used is "your mind reading powers are failing you" or something similar.[/quot

That applies here in spades. So these continued rants on how bad I am or what motivates me to say what I say are nothing more than rank hypocrisy, not to mention just plain stupid.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Not only that, I've publicly explained my motives many times. The primary issue for me is Christians excusing and covering for what Trump does when what he does is clearly and simply wrong. That is what creates my interest in trying to sway opinion on this board. It is not 'hatred' of Trump.

You're right in so far as I don't know what's really going on in your head, but I do know how you conduct yourself on this forum and the -- how shall I put it -- the uncharitable things you say about Trump and your fellow Christians on a regular basis, so if there is some disconnect between the way you think and the way you express yourself here then this is something that you should probably address.

[oxmixmudd]

You're right in so far as I don't know what's really going on in your head, but I do know how you conduct yourself on this forum and the -- how shall I put it -- the uncharitable things you say about Trump and your fellow Christians on a regular basis, so if there is some disconnect between the way you think and the way you express yourself here then this is something that you should probably address.

If I say 'uncharitable things' about my 'fellow Christians', rest assured it is always returned to me in like kind somewhere between 2 and 10 fold. There has never been a time when whatever I've done that was outside the bounds of what a Christian should do was not duly compensated for many times over by the crowd you hang with.

[Mountain Man]

If I say 'uncharitable things' about my 'fellow Christians', rest assured it is always returned to me in like kind somewhere between 2 and 10 fold. There has never been a time when whatever I've done that was outside the bounds of what a Christian should do was not duly compensated for many times over by the crowd you hang with.

Right, it's everybody else's fault. The cry of the hypocrite.

[lilpixieofterror]

If I say 'uncharitable things' about my 'fellow Christians', rest assured it is always returned to me in like kind somewhere between 2 and 10 fold. There has never been a time when whatever I've done that was outside the bounds of what a Christian should do was not duly compensated for many times over by the crowd you hang with.

Nice self righteousness.

[Tassman]

False. He presumed it and indicated that he was never directed by Trump or anybody else to make an offer resembling quid pro quo, which is consistent with the testimony of Volker and others who flatly reject the suggestion that quid pro quo was ever on the table.

And we all know the context of Sondland’s original Trump quote of no quid pro quo. Besides, it is nullified in any event by Sondland’s subsequent turn-around, which is more congruent with that of many other witnesses.

[JimL]

No, it translates to "It has never been proven that he did anything wrong."

We could also reasonably conclude from Barr's denial of Trump's request that while he recognizes that the President is innocent, he's confident enough in the system that he doesn't feel the need to become personally involved.

Like I said, there are a number of explanations, but ox is so blinded by his hatred for Trump that he can only allow himself to see the one possibility that he desperately wants to be true. For my part, if it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Trump committed a serious enough crime to warrant removal from office then I will support it, but to date, there is zero evidence leading to that conclusion.

Duh, he hasn't been proven guilty because he hasn't been put on trial yet. He basically wanted Barr to publicly exonerate him beforehand. And really, MM, zero evidence? Like I've said before, you're beyond hope, MM.

[Mountain Man]

And we all know the context of Sondland’s original Trump quote of no quid pro quo. Besides, it is nullified in any event by Sondland’s subsequent turn-around, which is more congruent with that of many other witnesses.

Nullified nothing. Sondland says he "presumed". Frankly, he can presume whatever he wants. That doesn't make it a fact.

[Mountain Man]

Duh, he hasn't been proven guilty because he hasn't been put on trial yet.

And he hasn't been put on trial because there is no evidence with which to charge him.

[JimL]

And he hasn't been put on trial because there is no evidence with which to charge him.

One of the crimes that Michael Cohen is serving time for is campaign finance fraud, and American Media inc admitted that the $150,000 in hush money they paid the women was for the purpose of helping Trumps campaign. Now, I understand that's not evidence as far as you're concerned, but then again, you don't seem to know what evidence even means.

[Mountain Man]

One of the crimes that Michael Cohen is serving time for is campaign finance fraud...

Yeah, he pleaded guilty to something that wasn't a crime. Former chairman of the FEC said no laws were broken.

[Watermelon]

Yeah, he pleaded guilty to something that wasn't a crime. Former chairman of the FEC said no laws were broken.

That..... makes no sense. You literally can't plead guilty to something that isn't a crime.

While a former FEC chairman's opinion could provide some insight, its up to the courts to determine if laws had been broken.