Why do you pretend there is a meaningful difference between “do me a favor” and “do us a favor” when that favor involves his domestic political rival?
Maybe this will help? Me: "Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself" https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/me Us: "Used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people" https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/us First, one needs to learn to count. Then, one might begin to understand that more than one is not a similar quantity to one.
....by investigating Crowdstrike. Because that makes a huge ****ing amount of sense and really helps America....
I see a similarity. But seriously, jokes aside. Does it really make sense to argue that Trump was referring to anyone other than the royal we (i.e. himself)? Put more specifically, how does looking into "Crowdstrike" benefit the American people in any shape or form?
Not a hoax. ...but you think "crowdstrike" has precisely what to do with Ukraine or your understanding of the "Russia hoax?"
Did you see Pelosi shake and tremble this morning then lash out in a fit of rage at the reporter???? \ Pelosi was completely unhinged.
No. I don't think Ukraine played a part in the Russia hoax. They did play a part in interfering in our election, though. Was Hunter Biden a pawn in that part? I don't think it's unreasonable to wonder about that.
Your interpretation is based on a select few witnesses who based their testimony on personal opinion and presumptions.
I just wrote out 'I love Trump' 100 times. Let the Senate know so they can call me to give testimony.
Yes, like Sondland lying about a conversation with Pence that never happened and lying about a conversation with an Ukraine official about the aid that never happened.
I think it is certainly a novel conspiracy theory. Do you see any merit to "crowdstrike" as a talking point?
Yes........witnesses. There are other more important witnesses that are prevented from testifying. Why is that? Republicans complain of not being able to call witnesses but the question is.....are they relevant witnesses?
It's funny how you keep going back to Sondland lying but never seem to consider that the main character in this lies all the time. You can say that he was not under oath in front of Congress but that doesn't change the fact that he lies all the time. You must have a unique gift to tell when the lies are relevant. While I would love to see him under oath I know it will never happen. He'll resign before that happens. Too bad for you.
Please explain the 2nd part of your post.. I understand there is some discrepancy over the Sondland/Pence conversation, but there is none over the Sondland/Yermak conversation during the same period......
