Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

Featured Replies

Waiting for a mention of Uranium One next

Edited by Homercles

  • Replies 10.5k
  • Views 675.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Most Popular Posts

  • I voted for Trump/Against Hilary Clinton.   He should be impeached for: Extortion of a foreign government by withholding military assistance to an ally (and benefitting Russia) in exchange

  • Paul Wesley
    Paul Wesley

    I'm a couple pages back in this fast-moving thread, but I wanted to respond to this.   I'm pretty close to you in demographics, and I was also a child who echoed his parents' pro-Reagan stance, a

  • Unreal. Biden’s son can take home $1m a year from a Ukrainian company he knows nothing about...but our president acts like the CEO of a company with leverage in cutting deals and this shit happens?

Posted Images

Did Sondland ever say that Trump told him that money for weapons was in exchange for investigations or was that just an inference Sondland made on his own?  That appears to me to be a rather important distinction.

29 minutes ago, YChang said:

Hmmm... found the GOP line to use now, "President Trump never told me directly that the aid was conditioned on” investigations."

"Did the president ever utter the words 'I, Donald J Trump, being of sound mind and body, hereby bribeth thee, Volodymyr Zelensky, president of Ukraine'"?

 

"No"

 

"No further questions"

Just now, Fozzz said:

Did Sondland ever say that Trump told him that money for weapons was in exchange for investigations or was that just an inference Sondland made on his own?  That appears to me to be a rather important distinction.

Your IQ being 20 points distinct from average -- on the south side -- seems important, too.

Ya may have to go through hundreds of lies and a bunch of rape but Ken Starr is eventually forced to say the right thing.

What a country.

Reddit TD clowns saying they think this is so embarrassing to Dems that they won’t even bother impeaching...ok good luck with that

Castor is so bad.

"He never said 'GO talk to Rudy,' he said 'Talk to Rudy.'"

Edited by Chuckie Finster

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

Did Sondland ever say that Trump told him that money for weapons was in exchange for investigations or was that just an inference Sondland made on his own?  That appears to me to be a rather important distinction.

Everyone knows a crime isn't a crime unless you specifically outline why it's a crime as you're committing it, duh. 

Just now, Captainant said:

Everyone knows a crime isn't a crime unless you specifically outline why it's a crime as you're committing it, duh. 

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

Call me a ding dong, but I can’t help but presume the Senior Counsel behind Castor is constantly looking, down, checking her Twitter mentions.

1 minute ago, Fozzz said:

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

What evidence of intent do you feel is lacking?

Just now, tantric superman said:

What evidence of intent do you feel is lacking?

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

6 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Your IQ being 20 points distinct from average -- on the south side -- seems important, too.

You're being a bit generous. 

2 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

The evidence is subject to reasonableness. Do you think that Trump, or any leader in politics or business, speaks in 100% absolutes? We all interpret what people say, and people are still held responsible.

Do you think that every person ever convicted of telling a subordinate to commit a crime, had to explicitly make the request in order to be convicted?

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

When whether or not something is a crime is conditioned on specific intent, then yes, evidence of that intent is important.  

Yes, Trump and Giuliani inadvertantly withheld Congressionally-approved aid from an ally in exchange for a political favor.

Of course there was intent.  And the proof is all over your tv right now.  If you still don't see it, it's because you don't want to.

Edited by TexArcher

7 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

I'm not asking you what the burden of proof is, I'm asking you what kind of evidence you would need.

 I'm just vaguely curious. 

Edited by tantric superman

Yes, Trump and Giuliani inadvertantly withheld Congressionally-approved aid from an ally in exchange for a political favor.

It was all just a funny coincidence.
Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The evidence is subject to reasonableness. Do you think that Trump, or any leader in politics or business, speaks in 100% absolutes? We all interpret what people say, and people are still held responsible.

Do you think that every person ever convicted of telling a subordinate to commit a crime, had to explicitly make the request in order to be convicted?

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  As to your question, I do not believe that to be true.  However, we are discussing the probity of Sondland's testimony and his testimony appears to be lacking with respect to the key ingredient of bribery.

2 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

In fairness, Starr is saying that this is Schiff’s position.  He is not saying it is his

Just now, Nice Guy Eddie said:

The evidence is subject to reasonableness. Do you think that Trump, or any leader in politics or business, speaks in 100% absolutes? We all interpret what people say, and people are still held responsible.

Do you think that every person ever convicted of telling a subordinate to commit a crime, had to explicitly make the request in order to be convicted?

Everyday people get convicted of crimes where the only evidence of specific intent is circumstantial. The informed opinion of the Sondland, who was involved in the day-to-day of this particular scheme, of what he believed Trump's intent to be is amazingly important and directly relevant. Fozzz remains an absolute moron. 

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb and suggest that when the President directs someone to work with Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani conveys the quid pro quo nature of the task at hand, then that ties directly back to the President, Rocko's keen legal analysis notwithstanding.

On 11/15/2019 at 5:32 PM, Hugo Stiglitz said:

What this is really about is making it difficult for GOP Senators to acquit Trump.  I know everyone thinks it’s a foregone conclusion (probably is) but I guarantee you no senator really WANTS to acquit Trump in the face of overwhelming evidence.  They would actually prefer not to vote at all.

 

Then those spinless fucking weasels need to convince DOTARD to resign.

3 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Ugh, the burden runs the other way bro.  I don't find Sondland's "guess" (as Sondland himself put it) to be all that powerful of evidence of Trump's intent.  

I think it's certainly reasonable cause to investigate a crime (ie, an impeachment hearing) and to gather evidence (turn over documents, get White House officials to testify.)  

It's an absurd position to assert that Sondland's limited access does not provide enough proof while arguing that others with more access can be barred from coming forward. Sondland, and the other witnesses, is who we have.  You want more certainty, then lets get more witnesses. 

1 minute ago, Horn Dog said:

In fairness, Starr is saying that this is Schiff’s position.  He is not saying it is his

good point. Starr will still most likely walk the line that he doesn't think that a crime occurred, and if even if that is proven to be true, it doesn't rise to the level of removing a president. That level being on a president lying about sex.

From the "who could have ever seen this coming?" files:

 

Edited by Chuckie Finster

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

I'm gonna go WAY out on a limb and suggest that when the President directs someone to work with Rudy Giuliani and Giuliani conveys the quid pro quo nature of the task at hand, then that ties directly back to the President, Rocko's keen legal analysis notwithstanding.

We also have Trump admitting to it. But other than that I guess there's just no way of knowing his intent. 

1 hour ago, TexArcher said:

"Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo."

"Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President."

"Everyone was in the loop."

 

BURN IT DOWN!!

 

giphy.gif

Just now, Red Five said:

We also have Trump admitting to it. But other than that I guess there's just no way of knowing his intent. 

I couldn't find that evidence, so I went with Rudy.  Link?  I need to keep a file.

Just now, Goredho said:

giphy.gif

Jesus, that is terrifying. 

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

Jesus, that is terrifying. 

That's his O face.

1 minute ago, HenryJames said:

That's his O face.

As in, "Oh boy, dicks!"

Back to the whole the aid was released after we got caught, so no big deal. 

9 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.  As to your question, I do not believe that to be true.  However, we are discussing the probity of Sondland's testimony and his testimony appears to be lacking with respect to the key ingredient of bribery.

Siths are generally pretty good at distinguishing difference between credibility, types of evidence and elements of a crime, though.

Check out Trump's notes, definitely the sign of a business genius.

Screenshot-20191120-114607-Twitter.jpg

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Back to the whole the aid was released after we got caught, so no big deal. 

Someone should ask these idiots what happens if you attempt to rob a bank, but get caught in the act.

Edited by kevwun

35 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:

 

Fucking libtard

Haha... how is this an irregular channel?

Hahaha, he is dancing around Rudy and specifically not mentioning him as part of the "irregular channel". 

2 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

I feel like he writes with his entire hand around the marker.

well with hands that small, can you blame him?

Fozzz is a great example of why no matter what comes out of the hearings there will still be millions of people who hear what they want to hear and will never move away from what they believe. Back to the shooting someone in the middle of Times Square. 

So, uh, we got him?

You know Trump is really thinking, “I can’t believe THIS is what they’re impeaching me over.  I have done so much far worse shit than this and everyone knows about most of it. SAD!”

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.