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

  • Author
1 hour ago, TexEx15 said:

 

the "unprompted" no quid pro quo story coming out is just so cinematic (most stuff is in my head).

there have been several "A few good men" parallels, but when caffey is done walking with weinberg at his house, he says he was told "kendrick said specifically those men were not to be touched."  pollock is like, "so?"  and caffey says, "i never asked about kendrick, i don't even know who he is."  this is what a cover story looks like when it starts.

also, in all the president's men.  redford is talking to his editor, and says the white house told him something like "at no time do we believe howard hunt was involved in the break-in at watergate headquarters, or committed anything improper blah blah i can't remember."  again, his editor is like, "so, isn't that what you expected?"  and redford says, "i didn't ask about watergate, i just asked what were hunt's duties at the white house.  they volunteered he was innocent, but nobody asked if he was guilty."  and his editor thinks and then says, "be careful how you write it."

trump is so fucking inept, that he had to write his talking points for the cover-up down.

"hey mr president, how's it going?"

"no quid pro quo."

"ok, sounds good." 

  • 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

Just now, BradInATX said:

You know absolutely nobody here believes you when you say this, right?

He won't be voting for Teanna Trump in her effort to recoup payment for fucking Dennis Schroder of the Thunder.

Another Gary Johnson voter! How did he not do better 

1 hour ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

So I just started watching again about 15 minutes ago.  Why are no Reps asking questions?

They're given time, but they use it to grandstand instead.

4 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Because it was consistent with official US policy, including the support of Congress, you waterhead.

Yes, this is important. 

Agents of the US government can do all kinds of bribey, extorty, quid-pro-quo-y things in furtherance of the policy of the US.

Quasi agents of the government acting actually on behalf of the President cannot do those same things in furtherance of the policy of the President, i.e. for his personal benefit.  It gets even worse when that personal benefit is to affect an election.

Just now, 4th&Five said:

Another Gary Johnson voter! How did he not do better 

In another 20 years, there will be about 60 million people claiming to have voted for Gary Johnson.

2 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

hes not my boy.  didn't vote for him last election.  won't this time either.  

Image result for gary johnson texas longhorns"

3 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well I will definitely lose sleep over that tonight.  

The fact that you're a very obvious Trump true believer who still tries to craft a false image of "both sides! I'm smarter than anyone on one side or the other!" absolutely proves that you have a massive insecurity issue about what you really are. So I'd imagine you do lose sleep over what you've become, or else you wouldn't have invented this Gary Johnson voter facade for yourself. Nobody believes your charade.

Edited by BradInATX

4 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

well I will definitely lose sleep over that tonight.  

I don’t think you’ve told us the crime committed yet. Or were you lying that whole time?

2 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

 

I mean, that Nunes & co. reaction going viral said it all.

7 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

the "unprompted" no quid pro quo story coming out is just so cinematic (most stuff is in my head).

there have been several "A few good men" parallels, but when caffey is done walking with weinberg at his house, he says he was told "kendrick said specifically those men were not to be touched."  pollock is like, "so?"  and caffey says, "i never asked about kendrick, i don't even know who he is."  this is what a cover story looks like when it starts.

also, in all the president's men.  redford is talking to his editor, and says the white house told him something like "at no time do we believe howard hunt was involved in the break-in at watergate headquarters, or committed anything improper blah blah i can't remember."  again, his editor is like, "so, isn't that what you expected?"  and redford says, "i didn't ask about watergate, i just asked what were hunt's duties at the white house.  they volunteered he was innocent, but nobody asked if he was guilty."  and his editor thinks and then says, "be careful how you write it."

trump is so fucking inept, that he had to write his talking points for the cover-up down.

"hey mr president, how's it going?"

"no quid pro quo."

"ok, sounds good." 

This is one of those cases in a jury trial where you probably want to have the jury draw its own conclusion about whether that conversation actually reflected the intention of Trump or whether it was a half-hearted denial of the truth.  The idea being that fact finders that reach their own conclusions do so with more conviction than when spoon-fed a conclusion.

However, in this instance, it would probably have been wise to ask Sondland:

So, did the President's protestations that he wanted nothing from Zelensky ring true?

Were those protestations consistent with what you knew of the President's behavior toward Zelensky?

Do you know why he specifically mentioned "quid pro quo"?

Is it your overall impression that this conversation was an effort by the President to deny or distance himself from what had actually taken place?  That, until that conversation he had in fact wanted something from Zelensky very badly and was willing to use military aid as a quid pro quo to get that something?  

 

Edited by TwiceHorn

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:


How is Biden’s statement about the Ukrainian prosecutor a “100% illegal” quid pro quo? Please cite the US Code provisions?

Because see...soliciting the action of a foreign state isn’t a crime. Nobody says it is. Soliciting such action in exchange for some benefit to be provided by the US isn’t a crime. There’s one distinction that makes it a crime. It’s an important one. Did Rush tel you what it is? I bet not.

What you lawyers don’t seem to understand is that quid pro quo is illegal.  In all circumstances. In fact, “quid pro quo” is Latin for “the only bad thing” and it is, as the name implies, the only thing that is illegal under US law.  See, e.g., stare decisis, sua sponte, en banc, et al.  It’s a little known fact of our legal system that you can do whatever the fuck you want so long as you don’t have quid pro quo.  It is also a defense against quid pro quo to utter the words “No quid pro quo!”, unless you have previously accused someone else of quid pro quo in which case.... no backsies. 

Ergo ipso facto presto changeo, Biden is guilty and Trump is innocent.  

1 minute ago, Radical Larry said:

 

 


TOTAL EXONERATION!

 

 

Perfect testimony!!

2 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

See, e.g., stare decisis, sua sponte, en banc

Hey, whatever happened to him?

“Verifiable proof” has been splashed over all the right wing media/forums today. It’s Wednesday’s one hit wonder. 

Tomorrow’s song will be Til Tuesday’s Voices Carry because well, “he loves your ass.”

The GOP reminds me of the annoying kid on the playground that constantly makes up new rules to whatever game he just lost at.

And while I would have meant that as an analogy in the past, now I mean they are precisely like that kid in every way except for inhabiting adult bodies.

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is one of those cases in a jury trial where you probably want to have the jury draw its own conclusion about whether that conversation actually reflected the intention of Trump or whether it was a half-hearted denial of the truth.  The idea being that fact finders that reach their own conclusions do so with more conviction than when spoon-fed a conclusion.

However, in this instance, it would probably have been wise to ask Sondland:

So, did the President's protestations that he wanted nothing from Zelensky ring true?

Were those protestations consistent with what you knew of the President's behavior toward Zelensky?

Do you know why he specifically mentioned "quid pro quo"?

Is it your overall impression that this conversation was an effort by the President to deny or distance himself from what had actually taken place?  That, until that conversation he had in fact wanted something from Zelensky very badly and was willing to use military aid as a quid pro quo to get that something?  

 

Blue star for you. If Schiff had awarded Maloney that script and said pursue this, I guarandamntee that the exodus for the door at its conclusion would have been comical. 

4 minutes ago, ndawg said:

The GOP reminds me of the annoying kid on the playground that constantly makes up new rules to whatever game he just lost at.

And while I would have meant that as an analogy in the past, now I mean they are precisely like that kid in every way except for inhabiting adult bodies.

They remind me of a dog that's been caught eating out of the kitty litter, and they are trying to not talk about eating cat shit, and instead are bitching about who ratted them out.

18 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Yes, this is important. 

Agents of the US government can do all kinds of bribey, extorty, quid-pro-quo-y things in furtherance of the policy of the US.

Quasi agents of the government acting actually on behalf of the President cannot do those same things in furtherance of the policy of the President, i.e. for his personal benefit.  It gets even worse when that personal benefit is to affect an election.

And this wasn't just to further the policy of the US.  This was what most of the world wanted.

29 minutes ago, pepper brooks said:

so help my dumbass understand how getting a foreign prosecutor fired for investigating Biden's kid by withholding aid is not corruption/bribery. 

And I am fine with trump being removed for the same thing if proven.  proof seems thing based on testimony have seen. I understand with trump it is using a foreign government to potentially dig up dirt on a political opponent.  wait a minute....haven't we seen that somewhere recently as well?  seems we have.  

Not that you care, but that prosecutor was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden when he was fired.

So the very best piece of exculpatory evidence is the President after finding out a whistleblower reported his quid pro quo, blurts out "No quid pro quo!" andtwo days later the money is released?

Ms Cooper, on the other hand is joined by Dan Fogler (Jacob, the baker from Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them).

54 minutes ago, Radical Larry said:

 

 


TOTAL EXONERATION!

 

 

signed, all Republicans.

I can’t wait for the inevitable surfacing of smartphone videos featuring sovereign citizen types attempting to argue their way out of speeding tickets by screaming “No quid pro quo!” at annoyed state troopers.

from earlier today.  Didn’t notice the printed tweets.

39 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

This is one of those cases in a jury trial where you probably want to have the jury draw its own conclusion about whether that conversation actually reflected the intention of Trump or whether it was a half-hearted denial of the truth.  The idea being that fact finders that reach their own conclusions do so with more conviction than when spoon-fed a conclusion.

However, in this instance, it would probably have been wise to ask Sondland:

So, did the President's protestations that he wanted nothing from Zelensky ring true?

Were those protestations consistent with what you knew of the President's behavior toward Zelensky?

Do you know why he specifically mentioned "quid pro quo"?

Is it your overall impression that this conversation was an effort by the President to deny or distance himself from what had actually taken place?  That, until that conversation he had in fact wanted something from Zelensky very badly and was willing to use military aid as a quid pro quo to get that something?  

 

Yes, but it is even stronger. 

Q. The President (or Giuliani) told you, unprompted, that there was no quid pro quo?

A. Yes.

Q. And then said "but if President Zelenski does not clear this up in public, we are at a stalemate"

A. Yes

Q. And you understood that second part to mean that if President Zelenski did not announce investigations, that the aid would not be released and no meeting would take place?

A. Yes. 

Q. That's a quid pro quo, one thing done for another, isn't it?

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you agree then that the initial unprompted declaration of "no quid pro quo" was contradicted by his very next sentence?

A. Yes.

Q. No quid pro quo was a false statement, wasn't it?

....

 

Oh snap, Ms. Cooper drops the Ukrainian knowledge of the hold as of July 25.

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

Oh snap, Ms. Cooper drops the Ukrainian knowledge of the hold as of July 25.

Was that when Nunes looked up like he was not wanting to be there?

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Was that when Nunes looked up like he was not wanting to be there?

Just listening, but would I be surprised?  No.

Haha, Schiff calling out Nunes on lack of Republican-requested witnesses when the two yesterday were Republican-request, and one of tonight's is.

Nunes probably shouldn't lie when he's sitting right next to somebody like Adam Schiff.

Edited by atomheartbevo

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

Just listening, but would I be surprised?  No.

To be fair, Nunes has been surprised a lot today.

2 minutes ago, atomheartbevo said:

Haha, Schiff calling out Nunes on lack of Republican-requested witnesses when the two yesterday were Republican-request, and one of tonight's is.

My guess is that Nunes was trying to say that no UNIQUE witnesses requested by Republicans were called.  That might actually be true.  It would shock me if the Democrats didn't also list Volker, etc.

Himes is my BOI! Laying down the fucking shit I was explaining to @Fozzz a couple pages back. No president may unilaterally deny the disbursement of aid on a "whim" or an individual preference. There are established processes and LAWS governing and guiding that process.

1 hour ago, pepper brooks said:

so biden didn't commit quid pro quo is your take away from his own words about withholding aid until a guy investigating his kid was fired.  that is your position?

Quid pro quo is a description of a transaction not the name of a crime. It is not a crime to make an exchange. It is not a crime for a nation to demand something of another nation in exchange for some benefit to be given.

It is a crime to use a US government quid pro quo in international relations to further private political interests. It's a crime with many names: bribery, abuse of power, high crime or misdemeanor.

You're almost clever enough to take Devin Nunes' place on the committee. Almost.

Hey, whatever happened to him?

And has he once against donned the yellow shirt in protest?
1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Hey, whatever happened to him?

Hopefully hasn't gone the way of SpeedGoat

Who's the hottie behind Sewell?

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.