|
"Now I have your transcripts. Ho ho ho."
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Ratcliffe is too dumb to understand the idea of changing language based on emergent facts. "The word bribery doesn't appear when I word search, clearly this wasn't bribery"  More magic words bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:56
|
|
|
We are back to the "specific word didn't get used therefore impeachment over" stage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
DebtBeat posted:It's literally a Russian disinformation campaign. Kremlin -> Konstantin Kilimnik -> John Solomon -> Rudy Giuliani and right-wing conspiracy-theory media -> Trump I know the entire thing is bananas, but how could anyone believe that Hillary Clinton, who had a private server in her basement, that the server was in loving Ukraine!? Why would she even do that!? It is insane. edit: Oh poo poo. Ratcliffe has papers!
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Mr. Rat: "How come no one ever asks non-lawyer witnesses for their legal judgment about whether this conduct is technically a crime?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Oh Ratcliffe no You dumb motherfucker
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Uh I pressed CTRL-F and didn't see that word at all. Checkmate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
There's no way that Ratcliffe read any of those 3500 pages
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Your honor, none of these witnesses have actually said homicide, they all just said killed, so this whole trial is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
"It's not technically bribery" is the defense they're going with?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
it depends on what the definition of "is" is
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Your honor, none of these witnesses have actually said homicide, they all just said killed, so this whole trial is bullshit. now ah'm just a simple country lawyer but it strikes me that "quid pro quo" and "bribery" are different words
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
DebtBeat posted:Ratcliffe: wow way to move the goalposts Dems, first you said quid pro quo, then extortion, now bribery as you know, the president is too stupid to commit multiple crimes at once
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
Dave Grool posted:"It's not technically bribery" is the defense they're going with? It's so much worse than that. It's: fact witnesses that shouldn't be making criminal judgments have never done so therefore no crime was committed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
"why do the crimes the president commits keep changing" gee i dunno
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
saying bribery a hundred times is a great way to get the public to... not think it's bribery
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 17:59
|
|
|
what even are synonyms, anyway?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Yeah and you'll know when the articles get voted on, you dingus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
I can't decide how much of the logical fallacies these guys believe. Like, are they just using this as a defense bc they know their chud constituents will hook on, or do they actually thing this is a legitimate defense? 'The words changed!' is some YouTube comment-level debate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
every time they claim trump isn't allowed to defend himself someone should mention that he is free to testify
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Quid pro quo, extortion, or bribery don't really have a real world difference. Legally, I guess. I'm not a lawyer, but everyone is talking about the same loving thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
R Congressman learns how to use CTRL+F. Very proud.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
I hate hearing "quid pro quo" now, especially since most of the fucks who keep repeating it don't know what it means. Extortion and bribery paint the picture much better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:every time they claim trump isn't allowed to defend himself someone should mention that he is free to testify I forget who said it last week but yes they should do it again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
AhhYes posted:It's so much worse than that. It's: fact witnesses that shouldn't be making criminal judgments have never done so therefore no crime was committed. in fact, a fact witness testifying to that effect would have their testimony objected to, and properly so. the decision about if the facts established constitute a crime is a question for the judge and jury, not the witness and a witness (even an expert witness) may not opine on it
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
ColonelMuttonchops posted:I hate hearing "quid pro quo" now, especially since most of the fucks who keep repeating it don't know what it means. Extortion and bribery paint the picture much better. Quid pro quo is just something Q taunted Jean-Luc about on the Star Treks Agreed that it needs more official/damning words or it's too abstract for folks
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:01
|
|
|
Strange Poon posted:every time they claim trump isn't allowed to defend himself someone should mention that he is free to testify he need not even testify, if he merely cooperated he would be allowed counsel present at this hearing with the right to cross-examine these witnesses ... but he has to cooperate with document requests
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
ColonelMuttonchops posted:I hate hearing "quid pro quo" now, especially since most of the fucks who keep repeating it don't know what it means. Extortion and bribery paint the picture much better. Don't forget that Vindman explicitly characterized the "favors" in the July 25th call as actually being demands because of the power difference between the US and Ukraine and how badly Ukraine needed the aid and WH meeting
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
Everyone knows that if you don't say the word bribery it's not a bribe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:02
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I can't decide how much of the logical fallacies these guys believe. Like, are they just using this as a defense bc they know their chud constituents will hook on, or do they actually thing this is a legitimate defense? 'The words changed!' is some YouTube comment-level debate. This is literally all they have. I think they're doing the best they can with what they have. Like can you even imagine trying to defend Donald Trump in a congressional impeachment hearing? And also you're kinda stupid. What can you do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
That's not what he read into the record you loving idiot.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
StrangersInTheNight posted:I can't decide how much of the logical fallacies these guys believe. Like, are they just using this as a defense bc they know their chud constituents will hook on, or do they actually thing this is a legitimate defense? 'The words changed!' is some YouTube comment-level debate. whose constituents do you think are leaving those youtube comments
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:06
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:That's not what he read into the record you loving idiot. Noted. (sad face)
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:07
|
|
|
BigBallChunkyTime posted:That's not what he read into the record you loving idiot. If viewed in a vacuum I would not want to be the guy who doesn't know the difference between a draft and the final version read into a record.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
Vindman has a REALLY good lawyer. He has been prepared for almost every GOP talking point they throw at him.
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:08
|
|
|
You've never met Giuliani or Trump in person so how do you know anything about their crimes??
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
"You never spoke to the President so how can you advise him"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:09
|
|
|
you're not the president's boss, are you sir? ARE YOU SIR
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
You're merely the guy that heads coordination of US-Ukraine policy, what do you even know??
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 12:54 |
|
|
Schiff: "Great, I gotta now define bribery and quid pro quo for the people, see what you made me do, Ratcliffe?"
|
|
#
?
Nov 19, 2019 18:11
|
|