The "there's no quid pro quo" argument is an odd choice. It's an argument that only a hyper-partisan will accept, given that call summary. But since hyper-partisans will accept ANY argument, why choose one so self-evidently stupid? Why not a more normative or sophisticated one?
Replying to @Popehat
Quid pro quo, Clarice!pic.twitter.com/2jHJeWz8zl
6:08 PM - 25 Sep 2019
0 replies
3 retweets
20 likes
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.