Lurker > karlpilkington4

Presumptions, opinions and hearsay are not facts or evidence, which is all that I've heard.

Ambassador Sondland was suppose to be a key witness for the democrats to prove a quid pro quo was committed by Trump. His exchange during the impeachment inquiry -

Asked outright, No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?, he answered, Yes.
The followup: So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Sondlands answer: Other than my own presumption.

When he (Sondland) directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

Now this is just one example. We have the outline of the call between Trump and the Ukrainian President, which didn't show any corruption. We have the Ukrainian President saying their was no Quid Pro Quo either. We have Trump saying that the funds were held to make sure Ukraine was not corrupted at the time, and to make sure Russia was not involved.

We also have the testimony of Kurt Volker (Special Representative for Ukraine) -

He said that when he helped facilitate contact between Giuliani and a senior Ukrainian official, he was not aware that anyone considered a "linkage" between U.S. military aid and the investigations Trump sought.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/19/kurt-volker-public-impeachment-hearing-071566

My question is, where is the evidence? Where is the proof that President Trump did something impeachable? Thank you.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Rexdragon125 posted...

Rexdragon125 posted...
He's literally admitted to the quid pro quo

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-admits-to-ukraine-military-aid-quid-pro-quo-tv-2019-11

No he didnt. When you have the use the word "essentially" in your headline, you already know the actual content will be distorted to oblivion, and they're just hoping the reader doesn't read too deep into it.

Trump said why would we give money to a corrupt country. Which is not the same thing as a quid pro quo. Not even close

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I hear ya TC. I get sent to purgatory for essentially breathing the wrong way. Unfortunately, mods have the power to suspend anyone for any reason. So if you're no in their "click", you better watch your 6.


---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Machete posted...

You're wearing a mirrored shirt so I can see your cards, shrug emoji

You're better than this bro

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hanky_Bannister posted...

apparently he doesnt think testimony is proof even though courts do

its funny he also never took the time to read the link in my op

I already showed testimony in these very hearings, and how it didn't prove anything. The ambassador who was being questioned, literally said that his only evidence of wrong doing was his own presumption. He said that Trump didnt want a quid pro quo. And finally, your link doesnt offer any evidence. Just more "testimony".

Testimony=/=proof. Not sure why that's so hard to decipher.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Machete posted...

This board is a giant, never-ending poker game. When I get reads, I don't un-get them.

I run marketing campaigns for local businesses. Not sure why youd think id be lying about that.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sackgurl posted...

the context, which your post lacked, which I have posted elsewhere and am again posting here. saying you want nothing in exchange to a potential witness when you have already demanded from your victim does not exonerate you from having committed a crime.

And yet no proof of this has been shown. For the 5th time, why is this so hard to understand? You need proof, not baseless presumptions

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sackgurl posted...

your initial post was lacking in the critical context of why he said those things to the investigation, and it was quite deliberately misleading. which is why i piped up to share the needed context.

also your post was outright wrong, since you called him the ukraine ambassador.

It didnt lack any context, you simply dont like the content. And me making a simple mistake doesnt suddenly make my entire post incorrect. The ambassador stated in his conversation with Trump, that Trump didnt want a quid pro quo, he didnt want anything in exchange.

Again, whats so hard to understand?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

The23rdMagus posted...

Other star witnesses with actual firsthand knowledge of the exchange are being blocked from testifying. Compel them.

Sure, I'll call up heads of state on my cellphone.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sackgurl posted...

no, we have witness testimony that trump said he did nothing wrong. which, since he is a known liar and rapist, is meaningless.

No. The president said to Sondland specifically I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

This is what Sondland told Congress. So is Sondland lying about his own conversations?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

The23rdMagus posted...

What if - and this is a stretch - Trump lied?

So, prove it.

The President of the Ukraine denies it. Star witnesses deny it. Transcripts dont show it. At what point do you admit that you need actual proof for criminal accusations?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

The23rdMagus posted...

Are we talking about the same witness testimony? Which are you referring to?

Ambassador Sondland, who contradicted himself countless times, and specifically said that the President told him that there was no quid pro quo and that he didnt want anything in return from Ukraine.

He was suppose to be a star witness, who's only evidence of a quid pro quo was his own "presumption".

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Darklit_Minuet posted...

My arguments were always from the perspective of "if the law says Zimmerman was right, then the law is fucking stupid". If he tried that here, he'd be arrested for having a gun in the first place. Florida (and indeed the majority of the US) having backwards laws doesn't mean he was right, just that he was legally in the clear.

Are "backwards laws" are just laws you dont agree with? Which laws are those specifically?


---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

The23rdMagus posted...

You're right. It depends on what's said during those calls. Thankfully, we have transcripts...sort of.

Which shows the president didnt do anything wrong. We have witness testimony which admits nothing was done wrong. What else is there?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hairistotle posted...

why are you responding to the guy who literally just told you he's going to ignore list you

is Tmaster a known troll? i dont recall seeing him before the past couple months

An hour earlier..."You're on the right side Tmaster!!"

Honestly...

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hairistotle posted...

you're the one being played though, how is that not plain as day? you think karl gives a shit about any of what you type? he doesnt even give a shit about what he types

I care to have honest dialogue and not be called a troll for posting statements, facts and opinions.

Its quite simple, really.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

soulunison2 posted...

Did he just admit he made the Ukraine call

No one is denying he made calls. Its not illegal or impeachable to call the Ukraine President

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sackgurl posted...

you have shifted: your initial post was 'the ambassador said the president never asked for a quid pro quo'

you're only admitting that he said there was because i forced you to

My initial post was that the ambassador did say those things. That is still my stance, because he literally said so.

Idk whats so hard to understand. I didnt admit to anything else.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

gunplagirl posted...

That's not fact, it's merely an opinion. I trust you understand the difference?

And its based on video evidence. Thanks for your imput though!

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sackgurl posted...

it is good that karl has shifted from trying to argue that sondland claimed trump didn't ask for a quid pro quo to attacking him, because attempting to argue the former would be a blatant lie dependent on nobody having actually seen or read his testimony

which is more or less what i'd expect from someone who can't differentiate two ambassadors since he's just copypasting astroturf emails but it at least is using today's astroturf emails and not last week's

I have not shifted anything. The ambassador claimed there was a quid pro quo. Then said the president never asked for a quid pro quo, and stated his only evidence for his claim was his own presumption. I can play the video for you, if you dont want to read it.


---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

gunplagirl posted...

Editorials are about as reliable for facts as getting the weather report from your horoscope

Good thing there is literal video evidence

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sackgurl posted...

1) you are mixing sondland, the EU ambassador, up with yovanovich, the ukraine ambassador

2) sondland's testimony on the subject of these denials from trump was the following:

So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Sondlands answer: Other than my own presumption.

Indeed, when he directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

Why did you leave this part out?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I forgot this part

He also admits his current take on it all is shaped by what hes read about others testimony not his own recollections.
Sondland was an amiable, charming witness, plainly eager to please each questioner. That may make for a good diplomat, but it rendered his testimony confusing and contradictory and basically worthless.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Ethosian posted...

karlpilikngton is a Funbazooka alt

Straight up lying is a TOS violation, you know that right?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hanky_Bannister posted...

so by that logic i could kill someone, tell you i didnt, and i'm innocent. republican logic

No, its not "by that logic". The ambassador had no proof that Trumps orders were a quid pro quo other than his own presumptions. He literally said in the same paragraph, that Trump told me that he doesn't want anything from the Ukraine president in exchange.

Dont call me a troll, just because you cant even keep up with the conversation

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Sondlands bombshell turns out to be merely his presumption

Asked outright, No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations. Yes or no?, he answered, Yes.
The followup: So you really have no testimony today that ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange for these investigations.
Sondlands answer: Other than my own presumption.

Indeed, when he directly asked Trump what he sought from Ukraine, the president responded: I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.

For weeks, Sondland testified, he saw no link between investigations and aid or a Trump-Zelensky meeting. And, he stressed repeatedly, he had no clue at all, til late in the game, that Joe or Hunter Biden was remotely tied to any of this.
He also admits his current take on it all is shaped by what hes read about others testimony not his own recollections.

https://nypost.com/2019/11/20/sondlands-bombshell-turns-out-to-be-merely-his-presumption/

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hairistotle posted...

this karl fellow is surely worth engaging in good faith

What part of my post isnt in good faith? Post actual points, and I'll close my account.

We'll wait

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hanky_Bannister posted...

and?

There is no "and". I simply quoted what Trump told the Ambassador. I'm not sure whats so confusing. Maybe too much CNN?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hanky_Bannister posted...

you mean the crap he wrote on his giant scrach-n-smell sharpie? xD

No, this came straight from the Ukraine Ambassadors mouth in the impeachment inquiries. He was suppose to be democrats star witness.


---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

"I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. Tell Zelensky to do the right thing. - Trump talking to Ukraine Ambassador months ago.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

DeadBankerDream posted...

Is this a Caution melty or just a Caution ceaseless torrent of shit?

Doesnt seem like either. His points are on point. But I guess when you post statements that differ from your world view, its a meltdown.

What else is new.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Caution998 posted...

I think one of their complaints is the fact that Trump has not gone thru the "proper channels" to deal with foreign diplomacy. There is no law restricting Trump to use different channels to deal with other countries' leaders, though. This is what Ambassador Taylor and the rest of those guys are concerned or upset about.

I suppose we'll see if they can make a solid case for impeachment.

Ambassador Sondland got railed in the impeachment inquiries for backpeddling. Its been weeks. What proof have the democrats shown?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I just got back from a 30 day suspension. I literally did nothing wrong. You cant breath the wrong way without getting modded if you're not in the right "click" here.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Ethosian posted...

No, but he should be investigated through the proper channels. Not by extorting a foreign country using military aid as leverage.

He didnt do that though. Have you even watched the impeachment inquires? CNN snippets dont count

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Hairistotle posted...

T master wtf I understand you're on the right side here

LOL

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

RdVEHfJqAvUPIbk posted...

Icon User Since: Dec 2012Karma: 1066Active Posts: 10

I've been in Purgatory for a month. Not sure what point you're trying to make

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Ethosian posted...

Funbazooka can't help himself. He gets massively butthurt when his cult leader gets criticized

You dont help your cause when you incorrectly guess my alt (which I have 0 of)

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Ps2Twilight posted...

"What are you going to do, impeach me?" - Man who got impeached

Who got impeached?

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Tmaster148 posted...

You mean a lie Trump supporters are pushing to defend their concentration camps

What lie?

Pictures of children behind chain-link fencing were captured at a site in McAllen, Texas, that had been converted from a warehouse to an immigrant-detention facility in 2014. Social media users who defended Trumps immigration policies also shared a 2014 photograph of Obamas Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, touring a facility in Nogales, Arizona, in 2014, in which the fencing could be seen surrounding migrants there as well.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-build-cages-immigrants/

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Ethosian posted...

Lmao at how brainwashed he's got you

I run my own business. No ones brainwashing me. Its actual fact. Less regulations, more business opportunities.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Caution998 posted...

or it could have something to do with helping everyone achieve wealth and prosperity and a slice of the American Dream.

Exactly. The economy is booming, security is better than ever. It has not been easier than it is now to succeed.

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

I've worked with environmentalists. I'll never do it again

---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Spooking posted...

Trump will bring up Liz lying about her ethnicity if she wins the primary, but don't worry, she has been a constant second or third WAY behind Biden. The old hag won't be winning the presidency any time soon. LOL!

Good, she couldn't even answer Andrew Yang's questions without resorting to political ad hominem BS
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Machete posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Machete posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Machete posted...

Heineken14 posted...

Machete posted...

He won't do that, KyerWiz

He'll just say it's all biased and misrepresentation. No, it's obviously not Donnie who continually lies despite video proof, it's everyone else who reports on his lies that are the REAL liars!

Edit
After reading more of the topic after quoting this, I am utterly shocked and amazed that is exactly what this dude did. Shocked. And. Amazed.

What can I say? Dilkington gonna Dilkington :P

(That's a reference to actual Karl Pilkington, who tc named his account after. He made a diary on a Ricky Gervais podcast and talked about getting mail addressed to 'Karl Dilkington' and Ricky thought the typo was funny, so I sometimes call him that)

I mean, none of what he said was true. I've been using facts to discredit outright lies, but sure. I appreciate the Karl references at the very least.

Karl references are 100% of why I even engage you tbh

If you want to watch listen to some old XFM shows, let me know. We can setup a Youtube session, live.

I could potentially take you up on that. I'd be willing to do some kind of voice chat thing but the only Mic I have is laptop built in (had a Mic on headphones wire but that wire died and I replaced it with an old one that doesn't have a mic)

Yea voice could work, there is also a chat box within the youtube live interface.

Let me know, we can listen to some Monkey News
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

sondast posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

sondast posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

sondast posted...

https://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/statements/byruling/false/

Not even a full list, but there you go. For anyone that wants to defend Trump's lies you can start there.

The very first "lie" on that list is full of bologna Trump said he is cutting illegal immigration in half, that is future tense. He didn't say it happened already, which this article FALSELY claims.

Jesus H Christ.

Edit - And on further investigation the claim is based on data for three months during fiscal year 2019, which show a drop of more than 60%.

So...

LMAO

Oh good, so it turns out you really can't defend a single lie.

Trump - We cut immigration by half (talking about a 3 month period)
Immigration goes down by 60% in those months

BUT BUT...TRUMP LIED

Like... are you hearing yourself, bud?

He didn't say it was over a 3 month period. Do you not even read what Trump posts, bud? Not really keeping score, but with the other posts, you're about 0-3 for successfully defending his lies.

Wrong

In small type the ad attributes the "cutting illegal immigration in half" claim to a Fox News segment from September. In that segment, Ken Cuccinelli, acting director of the Citizenship and Immigration Service, said, "We're down more than 50% since May, in just three months.",

The choice of May as a baseline was not a coincidence. That month, the number of people apprehended and deemed inadmissible at the southwest border -- which is used as a proxy for the level of illegal immigration -- hit 144,116, by far the highest of any month under Trump.
Cuccinelli was right. In August and again in September, the number of people apprehended and deemed inadmissible was less than half of the May figure: 62,707 in August and 52,546 in September.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/31/politics/trump-campaign-ad-world-series-illegal-immigration-half/index.html

Please apologize for calling me wrong. It was not a post. It was an ad at the world series. If you're gonna try and call me out, atleast fact check first.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

If a stripper gives you her number, its because she

A) Wants to get you back to her club so you spend more money on her

Or

B) She wants you as a sugar daddy.

Either way, all she wants right now is money. However, there's like a 6% chance I'm wrong, and this is actually true love.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Machete posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

Machete posted...

Heineken14 posted...

Machete posted...

He won't do that, KyerWiz

He'll just say it's all biased and misrepresentation. No, it's obviously not Donnie who continually lies despite video proof, it's everyone else who reports on his lies that are the REAL liars!

Edit
After reading more of the topic after quoting this, I am utterly shocked and amazed that is exactly what this dude did. Shocked. And. Amazed.

What can I say? Dilkington gonna Dilkington :P

(That's a reference to actual Karl Pilkington, who tc named his account after. He made a diary on a Ricky Gervais podcast and talked about getting mail addressed to 'Karl Dilkington' and Ricky thought the typo was funny, so I sometimes call him that)

I mean, none of what he said was true. I've been using facts to discredit outright lies, but sure. I appreciate the Karl references at the very least.

Karl references are 100% of why I even engage you tbh

If you want to watch listen to some old XFM shows, let me know. We can setup a Youtube session, live.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

FarFromFields posted...

karlpilkington4 posted...

FarFromFields posted...

Did we all forget that Donald Trump lied about Barack Obama's heritage?

More fake news. There is a difference between a lie and an accusation.

"He's spent millions of dollars trying to get away from this issue. Millions of dollars in legal fees trying to get away from this issue. And I'll tell you what, I brought it up, just routinely, and all of a sudden a lot facts are emerging and I'm starting to wonder myself whether or not he was born in this country."

- March 28, 2011, on Fox News

"He doesn't have a birth certificate, or if he does, there's something on that certificate that is very bad for him. Now, somebody told me -- and I have no idea if this is bad for him or not, but perhaps it would be -- that where it says 'religion,' it might have 'Muslim.' And if you're a Muslim, you don't change your religion, by the way."

- March 30, 2011, on The Laura Ingraham Show

"I have people that have been studying [Obama's birth certificate] and they cannot believe what they're finding ... I would like to have him show his birth certificate, and can I be honest with you, I hope he can. Because if he can't, if he can't, if he wasn't born in this country, which is a real possibility ... then he has pulled one of the great cons in the history of politics."

- April 7, 2011, on NBC's "Today" show

"His grandmother in Kenya said, 'Oh, no, he was born in Kenya and I was there and I witnessed the birth.' She's on tape. I think that tape's going to be produced fairly soon. Somebody is coming out with a book in two weeks, it will be very interesting."

- April 7, 2011, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe"

"He didn't know he was running for president, so he told the truth. The literary agent wrote down what he said ... He said he was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia ... Now they're saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her, she said, 'Oh, I mean Hawaii.' Give me a break."

- May 24, 2012, interview with The Daily Beast's Lloyd Grove, responding to an erroneous report about Obama

"A lot of people do not think it was an authentic certificate. ... Many people do not think it was authentic. His mother was not in the hospital. There are many other things that came out. And frankly if you would report it accurately I think you'd probably get better ratings than you're getting."

- May 29, 2012, to CNN's Wolf Blitzer

"An 'extremely credible source' has called my office and told me that @BarackObama's birth certificate is a fraud."

- August 6, 2012, in a tweet more than a year after Obama released his longform birth certificate

Thanks for proving my point. These are accusations. Saying "a credible source called me and told me X", isnt a lie, unless no one called him. So is it your stance that no one called? If so, what evidence do you have?
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"

Machete posted...

Heineken14 posted...

Machete posted...

He won't do that, KyerWiz

He'll just say it's all biased and misrepresentation. No, it's obviously not Donnie who continually lies despite video proof, it's everyone else who reports on his lies that are the REAL liars!

Edit
After reading more of the topic after quoting this, I am utterly shocked and amazed that is exactly what this dude did. Shocked. And. Amazed.

What can I say? Dilkington gonna Dilkington :P

(That's a reference to actual Karl Pilkington, who tc named his account after. He made a diary on a Ricky Gervais podcast and talked about getting mail addressed to 'Karl Dilkington' and Ricky thought the typo was funny, so I sometimes call him that)

I mean, none of what he said was true. I've been using facts to discredit outright lies, but sure. I appreciate the Karl references at the very least.
---

Is This The Krusty Krab? "No This Is Patrick!"