Ukraine call smoking gun

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Quid pro quo=Art of the deal.

Yep! And that includes illegal deals.

 

[BlindBoo]

In excerpts of Gordon Sondland’s deposition, the ambassador to the European Union revised his earlier testimony. He said he acknowledged telling one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisers in Warsaw that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”

Trumpybear and the corrupt RNC have been outed.

 

[EvMetro]

Your thread is an epic fail since it's a strawman. No one is claiming that call in itself reveals quid pro quo.

Congrats on being the first lefty to publicly admit that the call transcript does not contain a quid pro quo that is meant specifically to benefit Trump, and that the call itself was no such thing in itself. Other lefties on this thread are trying to claim otherwise, even though they cannot post a quote that fits the goal posts established in the opening posts. Some lefties are even making up quotes the way pencil neck did, and then wrapping their bs with quote marks.

 

[EvMetro]

In excerpts of Gordon Sondland’s deposition, the ambassador to the European Union revised his earlier testimony. He said he acknowledged telling one of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s advisers in Warsaw that “resumption of U.S. aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks.”

Trumpybear and the corrupt RNC have been outed.

Do you have a quote of a smoking gun as the opening post asks for?

 

[EvMetro]

I got it. So unless Trump says verbatim "I would like you to do this highly illegal thing that will benefit me and only me" then he can't be guilty according to you.

When this is the game you are having to play, you have already lost.

No, you do not get it. You have not demonstrated that you have read and understand the opening post. The opening post asks for something very simple that is very specific. It requests a quote of the smoking gun quid pro quo that was meant specifically to benefit Trump. I read the transcript and could not find c any such quote or smoking gun, even though commies like you insist that it is there, which is why I started the thread. So far, no lefty has posted any such smoking gun or quote, other that the quote that you made up like pencil neck taught you to. No real quote has been posted.

 

[Faun]

Your thread is an epic fail since it's a strawman. No one is claiming that call in itself reveals quid pro quo.

Congrats on being the first lefty to publicly admit that the call transcript does not contain a quid pro quo that is meant specifically to benefit Trump, and that the call itself was no such thing in itself. Other lefties on this thread are trying to claim otherwise, even though they cannot post a quote that fits the goal posts established in the opening posts. Some lefties are even making up quotes the way pencil neck did, and then wrapping their bs with quote marks.

It's true, the phone call is only evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Evidence of quid pro quo comes from witnesses who testified in front of Congress.

 

[RDD_1210]

I got it. So unless Trump says verbatim "I would like you to do this highly illegal thing that will benefit me and only me" then he can't be guilty according to you.

When this is the game you are having to play, you have already lost.

No, you do not get it. You have not demonstrated that you have read and understand the opening post. The opening post asks for something very simple that is very specific. It requests a quote of the smoking gun quid pro quo that was meant specifically to benefit Trump. I read the transcript and could not find c any such quote or smoking gun, even though commies like you insist that it is there, which is why I started the thread. So far, no lefty has posted any such smoking gun or quote, other that the quote that you made up like pencil neck taught you to. No real quote has been posted.

Oh I get it. You lack the ability to think critically and put things in context. Hence this ridiculous thread.

You're just like every other moron who still blindly supports the traitor occupying the white house.

 

[Zorro!]

I am declaring Trump's Ukraine call a clean and appropriate call with another country's leader. Lefties allege that the call contained a quid pro quo that was specifically meant for Trump's benefit. I have read the transcript and cannot find any such a quid pro quo, so I am challenging all lefties to post a quote of the smoking gun.

This thread is for lefties to post a quote of the smoking gun in the transcript that was recently made public. I predict lefties will post all kinds of evasions, but no smoking gun. A claim that it has already been posted does not count, only an actual quote counts.

Both Ukraine Calls Fail For Impeachment Crazed Dems:

WHEN NARRATIVES FAIL: Breaking: White House Releases Transcript of April Ukraine Call, Shows No Pre-Conditions for Meeting.

“Testimony from the Democrats’ witnesses has suggested that a White House meeting was predicated on Zelensky making a public anti-corruption statement, which many saw as part of the so-called quid pro quo.” Of course, the Democrats’ witnesses weren’t on the call, and were reporting hearsay piled on hearsay.​

So, they got caught spreading lies again.

 

[EvMetro]

I got it. So unless Trump says verbatim "I would like you to do this highly illegal thing that will benefit me and only me" then he can't be guilty according to you.

When this is the game you are having to play, you have already lost.

No, you do not get it. You have not demonstrated that you have read and understand the opening post. The opening post asks for something very simple that is very specific. It requests a quote of the smoking gun quid pro quo that was meant specifically to benefit Trump. I read the transcript and could not find c any such quote or smoking gun, even though commies like you insist that it is there, which is why I started the thread. So far, no lefty has posted any such smoking gun or quote, other that the quote that you made up like pencil neck taught you to. No real quote has been posted.

Oh I get it. You lack the ability to think critically and put things in context. Hence this ridiculous thread.

You're just like every other moron who still blindly supports the traitor occupying the white house.

Where is the smoking gun quote?

 

[EvMetro]

So, nobody can find a smoking gun in the Ukraine call. There was no impeachable offense in the call.

 

[EvMetro]

Your thread is an epic fail since it's a strawman. No one is claiming that call in itself reveals quid pro quo.

Congrats on being the first lefty to publicly admit that the call transcript does not contain a quid pro quo that is meant specifically to benefit Trump, and that the call itself was no such thing in itself. Other lefties on this thread are trying to claim otherwise, even though they cannot post a quote that fits the goal posts established in the opening posts. Some lefties are even making up quotes the way pencil neck did, and then wrapping their bs with quote marks.

It's true, the phone call is only evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Evidence of quid pro quo comes from witnesses who testified in front of Congress.

The lack of evidence of a quid pro quo will make it very difficult for the call to be used for an article of impeachment.

 

[Thinker101]

So, nobody can find a smoking gun in the Ukraine call. There was no impeachable offense in the call.

I'm sure there is a smoking gun, let's check Schiff's phone.

 

[Faun]

Your thread is an epic fail since it's a strawman. No one is claiming that call in itself reveals quid pro quo.

Congrats on being the first lefty to publicly admit that the call transcript does not contain a quid pro quo that is meant specifically to benefit Trump, and that the call itself was no such thing in itself. Other lefties on this thread are trying to claim otherwise, even though they cannot post a quote that fits the goal posts established in the opening posts. Some lefties are even making up quotes the way pencil neck did, and then wrapping their bs with quote marks.

It's true, the phone call is only evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Evidence of quid pro quo comes from witnesses who testified in front of Congress.

The lack of evidence of a quid pro quo will make it very difficult for the call to be used for an article of impeachment.

Except there is evidence. There's Trump holding up the money and then asking Ukraine for favors. There's Trump's acting chief of staff who admitted thd money was held up over the DNC server. There's Sondland testifying Guiliani was pushing quid pro quo to get Zelensky to publicly announce investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.

 

[iceberg]

I am declaring Trump's Ukraine call a clean and appropriate call with another country's leader. Lefties allege that the call contained a quid pro quo that was specifically meant for Trump's benefit. I have read the transcript and cannot find any such a quid pro quo, so I am challenging all lefties to post a quote of the smoking gun.

This thread is for lefties to post a quote of the smoking gun in the transcript that was recently made public. I predict lefties will post all kinds of evasions, but no smoking gun. A claim that it has already been posted does not count, only an actual quote counts.

the QPQ is an assumption of why he made the request.

to get at biden - then they have a point.
to investigate potential crimes regardless of who did them - then they have no point.

they went with assumption 1 and scoff at any other potential reason for this comment.

 

[EvMetro]

“I need you to do me a favor THOUGH”

I am bookmarking this commie lie for future reference.

Notes:

Post 41 of this thread

Usmb commie changed the "us" to "me" in order to dishonestly make it appear that Trump said something that he did not.

No more notes

 

[EvMetro]

Your thread is an epic fail since it's a strawman. No one is claiming that call in itself reveals quid pro quo.

Congrats on being the first lefty to publicly admit that the call transcript does not contain a quid pro quo that is meant specifically to benefit Trump, and that the call itself was no such thing in itself. Other lefties on this thread are trying to claim otherwise, even though they cannot post a quote that fits the goal posts established in the opening posts. Some lefties are even making up quotes the way pencil neck did, and then wrapping their bs with quote marks.

It's true, the phone call is only evidence that Trump asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Evidence of quid pro quo comes from witnesses who testified in front of Congress.

The lack of evidence of a quid pro quo will make it very difficult for the call to be used for an article of impeachment.

Except there is evidence. There's Trump holding up the money and then asking Ukraine for favors. There's Trump's acting chief of staff who admitted thd money was held up over the DNC server. There's Sondland testifying Guiliani was pushing quid pro quo to get Zelensky to publicly announce investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma.

Bullshit.

 

[Yarddog]

EvMetro declares the call clean everyone!

We can all go back to our regular lives now that the authority has spoken.

Already have.
In fact my regular life has never been better than the last three years.

But feel free to post your damning evidence. Pretty sure my life will still just go on.

I could post a video of him handing classified information directly to Putin and you'll tell me that you're ok with it because if Trump does it, it's not illegal.

I'll save my energy trying to jump through your ever shifting hoops.

No, actually you cant, can you? No such video exists.
We all know the whole damn thing is an inside job. FBI agent changed an email from the CIA confirming that Carter Paige WAS a CIA informant to an email saying he was not. Therefore, wrongly setting him up. Very telling of this whole Democrat operation. Schummer told it to us right didn't he?