When someone accuses Trump of soliciting a bribe from Ukraine, what’s the Persuasion response to that?
-
-
Replying to @jazzwind
We have a treaty with Ukraine specifically allowing this sort of request for investigation. You can't criminalize it by assigning a different word for it. That's word-thinking.
5 replies 4 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays
He didn’t go through the treaty. The “bribe” part is witholding official acts (aid+meeting) in exchange for personal gain (announcement of investigation). No word-assigning needed. No evidence supports your Corruption Crusader hoax.
5 replies 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @jazzwind @ScottAdamsSays
All the evidence supports Trump investigating corruption. No witness has said, afaik, that the 2020 election was on Trumps mind AT ALL, while many agreed that the Biden/burisma connection was suspicious. To call it bribery would make everything we do with aid bribery
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Eidotheia @ScottAdamsSays
There is no evidence pointing to “investigating corruption”, let alone “all”. No witness said that bc no one can read his mind. Other testimony, transcripts, and his own public statements support Bribery. No, only those things we do for personal gain are Bribery.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @jazzwind @ScottAdamsSays
You’re reading Trumps mind right now by saying he did it for “personal gain” rather than investigating corruption. All the evidence points to investigating corruption. Every bit.
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
The transcripts support Trump investigating corruption. His public statements support investigating corruption. Everything. The only thing Dems were asking about is quid pro quo (or bribery) but it doesn’t matter if the purpose was investigating corruption.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Eidotheia @ScottAdamsSays
Which transcript? What page? Count how many times he said the word corruption on the call. (Spoiler: 0). If you believe he was “fighting corruption” in one of most corrupt countries around and the only person he asked about was Biden you are hallucinating. Now do Crowdstrike.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jazzwind @ScottAdamsSays
Every transcript, every page relevant to the question, every witness, every testimony. It all boiled down the two things: Trump wanted an investigation into Burisma, and many witnesses agreed the Burisma/Biden connection was suspicious. None said it was about 2020. AFAIK.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Eidotheia @ScottAdamsSays
Since you can’t point to any specific evidence I will accept your surrender. He didn’t want investigations, he wanted the announcement of investigations. Including Crowdstrike, a totally debunked conspiracy theory being pushed by Putin.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Guilty until proven innocent seems to be the new standard.
-
-
Replying to @ScottAdamsSays @Eidotheia
No, if this were the new standard Trump would be in jail trying to prove his innocence. Instead we are going through the impeachment process as required by the Constitution.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.