Nothing in the dossier has ever been disproved, and three quarters of it has been substantiated. You can have an opinion about facts, but an opinion about the fairy dust you are sprinkling around is worthless.
What is it lately with journalists acting like professional journalists and not allowing people to lie straight to their face without challenging them on that lie?
You can have a talk with Johnny Fever. I agree with him that you're all being unnecessarily crazy. He is not a bot. (He knows what Arby's is.) I had a long conversation with him once. He's conservative, period.
"Yes, I honestly believe Trump didn't hold-up foreign aid to try to get the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden."
"In the case of Biden, there is a lot of factual evidence suggesting a quid pro quo agreement."
How is it you can ignore the actual evidence that Trump held up foreign aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agreed to investigate Biden Trump's political opponent and with all that has come directly from Trump's lying mouth and in several other corroborating forms (transcript, whistleblower, "China should investigate Biden, too," Mulvaney and good grief Giuliani over and over!)???
The "factual evidence suggesting a quid pro quo agreement" somehow coming from Biden has been debunked over and over again by several sources both on the left and the (non-disingenuous) right.
Saying you believe something because you say it over and over again only demonstrates that you want it so badly to be true-- that's it, it does not magically change your unsupported belief into a fact. And further, it just makes it blatantly obvious that your capacity for self - delusion is bottomless. And it completely shreds anyone's willingness to entertain anything you say afterwards because your original assertions are non-factual, untrue and whole cloth lies.
The ad hominems (that you yourself are guilty of) are being applied in your case because the non-commentators making them are acting on the assumption that you are trying to blow smoke up our asses and also, too; because none of us suffer such fools gladly, we in fact eviscerate them and turn their viscera into tennis strings where possible, pet food if found to be of an inferior quality.
That you continue to repeat the same lies repeatedly and seem to genuinely honestly naively believe them puts you into a different category than a fabulist in which case we who have impugned your sensitive character owe you a collective apology. For you are much too much a simpleton to understand your rôle as a useful idiot and deserve pity and maybe a cookie with warm milk, a pat on the head and a "tsk, tsk" as you are sent back to the child's playground of fantasies from whence you came so the adults can get back to adulting.
"If Mulvaney really believed there was a quid pro quo as it relates to Biden and Ukraine, he could easily confirm what the author would like to believe."
Mulvaney literally responded to a reporter saying he had described a quid pro quo by saying that the White House does that all the time.
Trump's children are all adults. They don't get special treatment because they're related to a prominent politician, and I'm guessing if you're an American you'd know that.
There is Zero evidence of any quid pro quo about Biden.
The Vice-President (as I already noted but you are uninterested in accepting because it goes against conservative religion) was executing the policy of the American government at the behest of its elected officials, in combination with several other governments, the IMF, and foreign corporations.
What "debate" are you actually after? It is a factual claim that Mulvaney responded to a reporter pointing out that he had described a quid pro quo, using the phrase "quid pro quo", by telling him that the White House does that all the time.That's not an issue up for any kind of discussion- it is literally what he said. If Mulvaney "misspoke" as you claim elsewhere, he hasn't said that himself. You have, but the man you're defending has not- he has just denied that he said what he is on video literally saying.
You are denying observable facts- you are not looking for a debate.
An onion-eyed, dog-hearted, elf-skinned, fen-sucked joit head.
Nothing in the dossier has ever been disproved, and three quarters of it has been substantiated. You can have an opinion about facts, but an opinion about the fairy dust you are sprinkling around is worthless.
What is it lately with journalists acting like professional journalists and not allowing people to lie straight to their face without challenging them on that lie?
Mick Mulvaney new nickname: Realtor Rick.
Pinchface, his Dick Tracey villain name.
Gotta stick to the Plutocrat Script
You can have a talk with Johnny Fever. I agree with him that you're all being unnecessarily crazy. He is not a bot. (He knows what Arby's is.) I had a long conversation with him once. He's conservative, period.
"Yes, I honestly believe Trump didn't hold-up foreign aid to try to get the Ukrainians to investigate Joe Biden."
"In the case of Biden, there is a lot of factual evidence suggesting a quid pro quo agreement."
How is it you can ignore the actual evidence that Trump held up foreign aid to Ukraine unless Zelensky agreed to investigate Biden Trump's political opponent and with all that has come directly from Trump's lying mouth and in several other corroborating forms (transcript, whistleblower, "China should investigate Biden, too," Mulvaney and good grief Giuliani over and over!)???
The "factual evidence suggesting a quid pro quo agreement" somehow coming from Biden has been debunked over and over again by several sources both on the left and the (non-disingenuous) right.
Saying you believe something because you say it over and over again only demonstrates that you want it so badly to be true-- that's it, it does not magically change your unsupported belief into a fact. And further, it just makes it blatantly obvious that your capacity for self - delusion is bottomless. And it completely shreds anyone's willingness to entertain anything you say afterwards because your original assertions are non-factual, untrue and whole cloth lies.
The ad hominems (that you yourself are guilty of) are being applied in your case because the non-commentators making them are acting on the assumption that you are trying to blow smoke up our asses and also, too; because none of us suffer such fools gladly, we in fact eviscerate them and turn their viscera into tennis strings where possible, pet food if found to be of an inferior quality.
That you continue to repeat the same lies repeatedly and seem to genuinely honestly naively believe them puts you into a different category than a fabulist in which case we who have impugned your sensitive character owe you a collective apology. For you are much too much a simpleton to understand your rôle as a useful idiot and deserve pity and maybe a cookie with warm milk, a pat on the head and a "tsk, tsk" as you are sent back to the child's playground of fantasies from whence you came so the adults can get back to adulting.
Your "dissent" here isn't based on anything.
But he does not seem to know that his avatar pic is not Johnny Fever. It's Andy Travis. He must of skipped WKRP history class at Kremlin University.
Give it a rest.
They smell the blood in the water. Before, they were afraid of being excluded; now the feeding frenzy hss begun.
"If Mulvaney really believed there was a quid pro quo as it relates to Biden and Ukraine, he could easily confirm what the author would like to believe."
Mulvaney literally responded to a reporter saying he had described a quid pro quo by saying that the White House does that all the time.
That's not misspeaking- that's an admission.
"Based on the dirty tricks the Democrats used to bring him down, I can hardly blame Trump for getting personally involved."
Which dirty tricks would those be, exactly?
Trump's children are all adults. They don't get special treatment because they're related to a prominent politician, and I'm guessing if you're an American you'd know that.
There is Zero evidence of any quid pro quo about Biden.
The Vice-President (as I already noted but you are uninterested in accepting because it goes against conservative religion) was executing the policy of the American government at the behest of its elected officials, in combination with several other governments, the IMF, and foreign corporations.
What "debate" are you actually after? It is a factual claim that Mulvaney responded to a reporter pointing out that he had described a quid pro quo, using the phrase "quid pro quo", by telling him that the White House does that all the time.That's not an issue up for any kind of discussion- it is literally what he said. If Mulvaney "misspoke" as you claim elsewhere, he hasn't said that himself. You have, but the man you're defending has not- he has just denied that he said what he is on video literally saying.
You are denying observable facts- you are not looking for a debate.