I know you FB. You aren't this dense. Please don't insult my intelligence with the above. Your post was meant to throw some shade/smoke in order to cover for......CNN? WaPo? SMH
Apparently, I am that dense. I absolutely hate CNN and have no interest in covering for them at all. I generally like WaPo but don't like substandard journalism no matter which publication commits it. I hadn't yet heard that the person testified that he never threatened to resign. The tweet you sent looked like they were saying the story was false simply because the guy already testified. I was simply trying to point out that in and of itself didn't make the tweet a lie. I probably could have researched more but with all the complaints about the media much of which aren't merited in the specifics of the complaint, it was a boy who cried wolf situation.
So instead of doing about 2 minutes of a google search to verify if the tweet I posted was accurate, you decided to throw shade. Duly noted.
Dude, you're not normally this sensitive. It was simply a point of logic, which is often needed in D&D. He said, A does not necessarily imply B. That's all. But you had a (totally correct) point C which was unstated within point A. This "disagreement" is not worth either of you guys' time and you actually agree on the bottom line.
Eh, I don't see him that way. We disagree on a few things, but he's a solid poster. I get his perspective. It shouldn't be so hard to point out when CNN ****s up without owning it, even as we consistently point out Fox's bias/mistakes.
Still... its like a "safe zone"... he can't discuss the president committing impeachable offenses, so instead he picks relentlessly on whether CNN reported that a guy was going to quit or not...
You confuse an attempt to see things in an even handed manner with defense of Trump. That's fine. I've criticized Trump before. I will again if warranted. I just won't fall victim to TDS. Carry on.
OK, any thoughts on trump admitting he blackmailed the president of ukraine to dig up dirt on the leading candidate he is running against, then the documents around this being moved to a secret location?
Nope, because I haven't heard testimony or read any source material (beyond the transcript) surrounding this event. Until then, I'll withhold comment.
You should probably continue to avoid any testimony or reliable sources if you want to remain a supporter of the president.
Convenient... the transcript and the whistleblower's complaint report were both released. Plus trump's and rudy's statements and tweets are public. But sure... you and the rest of the trump defenders withhold comment...
FWIW, you haven't even had access to a transcript. You've had access to a WH approved summary of the phonecall. And you have had testimony, this week, claiming under oath that the whistleblower was acting in good faith and not out of partisan motives, also FWIW. Cheers.
The thing is, every piece of incriminating evidence is already admitted by dumb and dumber(Trump and Gulliani). Trump admits he asked the Ukranian president to investigate Biden and his son. Trump admits that before the call he froze military aid to Ukraine. He has multiple contradictory excuses to why he did it but he readily admits it. Gulliani, a private lawyer of Trump's, with zero official capacity as a representative of the US government did go to Ukraine and hunt for dirt of Biden and his son and Trump readily admits that he told the Ukranian president to keep in touch with Trump's personal lawyer in this hunt to find dirt of a political opponent. Using Gulliani is even more open and shut evidence that Trump's motivation to find dirt on Biden is purely out of personal political self interest rather than US policy. Either Trump is that much of an idiot that he genuinely believes what he has done is perfectly legal hence why he brazenly admits to it or he believes that putting it out there so brazenly will convince his base that it must be legal because no sane human would self incriminate themselves so readily.
Ok. You have A, and you have B. You are INFERRING that A and B were related. Were is your evidence that that was the case?
The evidence is not being purposefully naive. Also, you admit that a personal lawyer of Trump, ordered at the direction of Trump, went to a foreign power and asked them to find dirt on a political rival?
A is a crime on its own, and POTUS and his lawyer have both admitted to that and provided a summary of the phonecall. You can verify that what they did was wrong via our nation's election rules. The link of A & B (quid pro quo) would also be bad. EDIT: And apart from crimes and/or misdemeanors... are you not completely bothered by our chief executive hitting up a foreign country for dirt on a political rival? Wouldn't you rather he pursue things that advance our national interest instead of his own interest? Again, if he's really so concerned, out of the goodness of his heart, about corruption in the Ukraine, we have available, open, legal channels for the US to ask about corruption involving our citizens in foreign lands.
Except that we have plenty of evidence to back that inference. It has already been stated publicly by people such as Michael Cohen that this is how Trump operates. That he doesn't state things directly. Chris Christie before the release of the transcript said that if Trump asked for a favor that would mean it is a problem and related to the aid to Ukraine. As we know that is exactly what Trump did. Leaving aside that supporting evidence it is still a very facile defense as it completely ignores context. If we accept that then we should've accepted Bill Clinton's "that depends what the meaning of 'is' is." defense.
fwiw, I do have some trepidation relying solely on wapo and nyt for breaking news about this. WSJ did open the report, but as for what really happened, it'll take some more revelations before anything is set in stone. It's going to be a long election year.
