It's proven by the fact that Dotard had ZERO interest in Ukrainian corruption EXCEPT "corruption" involving the Bidens. That Dotard wanted Zelensky to announce (but not conduct) an investigation into the Bidens has been confirmed by Sondland and Parnas.
...and Sondland admitted that he "assumed" it was a condition, that he was never TOLD it was. And Parnas will testify to anything for a reduction of charges against him.
Re "Parnas will testify to anything"... You don't get charges reduced for telling lies you think the prosecution might like. He has evidence to back up what he's saying (notes, texts, emails, etc). Prosecuting organized crime would be virtually impossible under your rules. The testimony from people who flip would never be admissible because they would always be assumed to be lying for a deal. Yet that is EXACTLY the way it works a lot of the time -- criminals get deals in exchange for telling the TRUTH about bigger criminals they committed crimes with.
Sondland "assumed" correctly. Because it was obvious Dotard wanted a Quid Pro Quo. Yet you think because Dotard didn't say the WORDS Quid Pro Quo there wasn't one. Why Dotard made that call (in which he said "no quid pro quo" and "I want nothing" multiple times). Though it was AFTER the whistle blower had reported what he witnessed.
Previous collusion (as documented in the Mueller report) and previous comments by Dotard indicating that, HELL YES, he's eager to collude again (the George Stephanopoulos interview) PROVE intent. Dotard solicited collusion multiple times on TV!! ("Russia, if you're listening", "China should start an investigation into the Bidens"). Dotard's intent is CRYSTAL CLEAR. "Unprovable"... BWAHHH!
In any case, I thought your defense was that there was nothing wrong with Dotard demanding a quid pro quo. Because it's his "job" to look into the (phony) corruption of possible opponents in upcoming elections. Harming Joe Biden's campaign being an unintended consequence, apparently.
You can't use multiple (opposing) defenses in hopes one will work. Innocent people have ONE defense (the truth).
No quid pro quo. I want nothing.
VERSUS
Yes, Dotard asked for a quid pro quo and wanted Ukraine to investigate his possible political opponent, Joe Biden. But that was totally OK because Joe Biden is "corrupt". Although Dotard wasn't concerned about Joe Biden's "corruption" prior to him running for the Democratic nomination (a total coincidence) and Dotard wasn't interested in any other corruption EXCEPT that of Hunter and Joe Biden. Although the upcoming election doesn't explain that -- RIGHT!
Real crimes for which there was real evidence. Why Manafort is in prison. Working on a campaign does not give a person immunity from prosecution for criminal acts.
There are a ton of books on the market (published recently) exposing the criminality, hypocrisy, and ineptitude of Dotard. None funded by George Soros.
20 comments:
"Do us a favor though".
It never hurts to ask...
It does if it's an impeachable offense.
Depends upon the unprovable....intent.
Good uck proving it.
It's proven by the fact that Dotard had ZERO interest in Ukrainian corruption EXCEPT "corruption" involving the Bidens. That Dotard wanted Zelensky to announce (but not conduct) an investigation into the Bidens has been confirmed by Sondland and Parnas.
...and Sondland admitted that he "assumed" it was a condition, that he was never TOLD it was. And Parnas will testify to anything for a reduction of charges against him.
Re "Parnas will testify to anything"... You don't get charges reduced for telling lies you think the prosecution might like. He has evidence to back up what he's saying (notes, texts, emails, etc). Prosecuting organized crime would be virtually impossible under your rules. The testimony from people who flip would never be admissible because they would always be assumed to be lying for a deal. Yet that is EXACTLY the way it works a lot of the time -- criminals get deals in exchange for telling the TRUTH about bigger criminals they committed crimes with.
Sondland "assumed" correctly. Because it was obvious Dotard wanted a Quid Pro Quo. Yet you think because Dotard didn't say the WORDS Quid Pro Quo there wasn't one. Why Dotard made that call (in which he said "no quid pro quo" and "I want nothing" multiple times). Though it was AFTER the whistle blower had reported what he witnessed.
Previous collusion (as documented in the Mueller report) and previous comments by Dotard indicating that, HELL YES, he's eager to collude again (the George Stephanopoulos interview) PROVE intent. Dotard solicited collusion multiple times on TV!! ("Russia, if you're listening", "China should start an investigation into the Bidens"). Dotard's intent is CRYSTAL CLEAR. "Unprovable"... BWAHHH!
In any case, I thought your defense was that there was nothing wrong with Dotard demanding a quid pro quo. Because it's his "job" to look into the (phony) corruption of possible opponents in upcoming elections. Harming Joe Biden's campaign being an unintended consequence, apparently.
You can't use multiple (opposing) defenses in hopes one will work. Innocent people have ONE defense (the truth).
No quid pro quo. I want nothing.
VERSUS
Yes, Dotard asked for a quid pro quo and wanted Ukraine to investigate his possible political opponent, Joe Biden. But that was totally OK because Joe Biden is "corrupt". Although Dotard wasn't concerned about Joe Biden's "corruption" prior to him running for the Democratic nomination (a total coincidence) and Dotard wasn't interested in any other corruption EXCEPT that of Hunter and Joe Biden. Although the upcoming election doesn't explain that -- RIGHT!
Which is it, Minus?
Democrats got the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump's campaign manager in 2016. Where's the outrage over foreign election interference?
lol!
Real crimes for which there was real evidence. Why Manafort is in prison. Working on a campaign does not give a person immunity from prosecution for criminal acts.
You need to read "Profiles in Corruption: Abuse of Power by America’s Progressive Elite" about the Biden 5 and all their criminal acts.
More fiction from the author of "Clinton Cash"? No thanks.
Wassa matter, George Soros didn't fund it? BWAH!
:)
There are a ton of books on the market (published recently) exposing the criminality, hypocrisy, and ineptitude of Dotard. None funded by George Soros.
...as far as YOU know.
As far as YOU know there are none. Otherwise you'd have provided a link that named them.
lol!
lol^2!
Post a Comment