Wasnt asking you, cretin.

Let me speak in your language of Cretin Retardian. Im a bit rusty. I haven't fully grasped your language.

Ok...ahem

Darrrr dyurrr wewoo wewoo wavaba nyarn wohoo wohoo waaaaaaa durrr durhhhhhh duhhhh

For people who arent Cretin Retardians, that translates to:

Go fuck your Dad's dick hole like the good little sperm you are

Snapshots:

1. Rightoids go "Full Leftoid" - archive.org, archive.today

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

Congrats, fellow sperg, you've finally joined us in the big leagues

Outlines:

1. This Post - Outline

^{I am a bot for posting Outline.com links. github / Contact for info or issues}

Reminder that all m*les are rapists.

Not all rapers are men, but all men are rapers.

There are foid rappers, too, just not many.

And they're not very good at it.

Not all mules

Sondland went full male feminist

After shoving him aside and speeding away from him in her car, she said Sondland never contacted her again about the job.

And then all the pedestrians clapped 👏👏👏

Also imagine thinking your readers are so retarded that you need to mention the fact that he ”never contacted her again about the job” lmao I’m utterly shocked they never discussed employment after this!

Some say she is speeding away to this very day.

Yeah stims definitely make you paranoid. Wouldn’t be surprised if she was high on addy and just geeked out and came up with this story to hide her unprofessional behavior to save face. Speeders gunna speed tho

No matter how fast you go, you can never get away from regret of missing out on a sexy evening with an egg shaped american followed by some business opportunity.

G E N D E R

O F

P E A C E

And it spells GOP. Get Dan Brown on this.

Gropers of pussy

Groypers of pussy

Damn you hate to see it

You mean you love to see the rise in dramacoin

Is it wrong to assume that a sexual assault allegation is nonsense if it happens when it's absolutely the most politically convenient?

It doesn't matter if it's real or not, that doesn't mean his testimony is false.

Surely you wouldnt take the testimony of a serial sexual harasser seriously?

I would if the evidence supports his testimony, and it does.

If we cant trust him around women, how can we trust his testimony?

Because it's confirmed by multiple other people.

The sexual harrassment?

No, the testimony he made implicating Donald Trump in the affairs of Gillani.

So if he states he is not guilty of sexual harassment even tho there are three witnesses to the contrary, we should still believe him? You sound like you hate women

Are you like short-circuiting right now? Do you need more ram?

I don't give a shit about sexual assault accusations. Your attempt at ideological bingo is denied.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't give a shit about sexual assault accusations.

Ah ok so accusations can be ignored if they support your ideology

The accusations against him are not relevant to his testimony.

How so? It shows him to be a liar

Because his testimony is confirmed by multiple people independent of him.

And how does it show him to be a liar?

In what way

You beat pizza this time. Good job.

How is beating pizza a good job. It just proves you're autistic enough to be on r/drama

Fuels his speed outs

But if these women are revealing that his moral character is eroded, then why should we believe that he wouldn't lie under oath?

Because other people have confirmed his testimony, and his testimony is confirmed by other facts that have become public.

Everyone has confirmed his testimony that no one has any evidence of a quid pro quo or anything else. All of them have said it.

The transcript Trump himself released has him asking for a favor after they discussed aid, that favor being a public investigation.

And I use the word "investigation loosely" because from what they have said, the announcement mattered more than the investigation.

If you want less direct evidence, the WH struggled to justify withholding the aid and Trump tried to have them come up with a reasona after the fact:

https://reason.com/2019/11/25/trump-team-plotted-post-hoc-justification-for-withholding-ukraine-aid-emails-suggest/

Budget office says "procedures were followed." After the talk of a "quid pro quo" with Ukraine started, President Donald Trump's team may have sought to reverse-engineer some legitimate reasons for withholding military aid. A review by the White House Counsel's Office found emails in which Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney asked budget officials if there was any legal justification for Trump's order to withhold the aid—weeks after the president had given said order.

Every single witness has testified that no meeting or announcement of an investigation was tied to any aid whatsoever.

Every...single...witness.

Yeah but what if it was

This is literally so factually incorrect I am completely baffled as to where you are getting this information from.

Their testimony. Go read it.

Plus, it's perfectly within his power to do so. This is why your latest impeachment is failing, lol.

Their testimony. Go read it.

I watched it all live.

Plus, it's perfectly within his power to do so. This is why your latest impeachment is failing, lol.

No, it quite literally isn't within his power. The president of the united states is not legally allowed to extort another country using US tax payer money to further his domestic political goals.

Correct, that's why he didn't extort anyone. Which is what every single witness testified to.

Literally fake news.

Read their testimony.

Again, what you are saying is fake news.

Their testimony isn't fake news.

Your understanding of it is.

pizza, no u.

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.”

Sondland’s 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.”

You can also find this part on YouTube if you want to marvel at the plasticity of human memory.

Yeah, now look at the other testimony and what Trump said you mongoloid.

Saying "talk to my lawyer" and then having your lawyer direct these things doesn't mean you weren't involved.

Use your brain - let's say you work for the president of the united states. Let's say you're seeking direction from that president. Let's say that president then directs you "speak to my lawyer" and his lawyer involves you in a bunch of absurd schemes.

A) Is it correct to presume that these orders came from the president?

B) Does having your lawyer do something mean you aren't guilty of it?

You're misreading what he's saying here. He's saying he never personally talked to the president, but when you combine all of this with the "talk to my lawyer" bit, the narrative changes.

Can you link me the layer bit, because "No one on this planet told you that President Trump was tying aid to investigations" sounds pretty clear cut to me.

Here's what he actually testified:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/20/us/politics/sondland-says-he-followed-trumps-orders-to-pressure-ukraine.html

Gordon D. Sondland, Mr. Trump’s envoy to the European Union, told the House Intelligence Committee that he reluctantly followed Mr. Trump’s directive. He testified that the president instructed him to work with Rudolph W. Giuliani, Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, as he pressured Ukraine to publicly commit to investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and an unsubstantiated theory that Democrats conspired with Kyiv to interfere in the 2016 election.

“We followed the president’s orders,” Mr. Sondland said.

Where's the quid pro quo tho?

I thought you have a testimony that Giuliani told Sondland that they are going to withhold aid, but Trump's defense was that it was Giuliani's personal initiative. But no, literally not a living soul did that apparently!

Are you just trolling now? The quid pro quo is the aid being withheld based on these investigations being announced.

You're really trying to spin right now. There's too much smoke, even for someone as hyper-partisan as you are to deny what happened here.

There's a reason they scrambled for a justification for withholding the aid after the fact. Matters are made even worse by the fact Trump is refusing to allow the relevant people to testify.

They're hiding something, you know they're hiding something, the general public knows he's hiding something.

You said that Wonderland's testimony had clear evidence of quid pro quo. When asked for receipts you pivoted to Trump asking him to work with Giuliani, now you're going full "known truths".

You should learn to convey your point while staying factually correct, maybe by using words like "circumstantial evidence", "could be inferred", "it is my presumption" and so on.

This is some serious cope/reality denial.

• Trump directs his lawyer to get the US government involved in putting pressure on Ukraine to open up investigations into weird conspiracies he himself fabricated.

• The US government then illegally withholds aid to Ukraine during this same time period.

• Trump learns he's been caught and instantly releases aid.

Does 2+2=4 or?

Good morning Pizza! I hope you brushed your teeth at least, this is very important as far as not succumbing into a depressed NEET pothead death spiral goes.

This is a meta-level discussion, not about the facts of the matter, but about whether the Sondland's testimony provided any unambiguous evidence for a certain version of events.

It didn't. Like nowhere near.

This is insane, you actually have very poor thinking ability.

Look, it's OK to say that as retarded Trump's clown posse is, they somehow managed to never break the pretense and while everyone understood that they are trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating Hunter Biden using the aid, no one has ever said it aloud to Sondland.

This is not a good evidence that they weren't doing that, but this is also a very weak evidence that they were.

It's as if you were looking into a certain pizza parlor and noticed that there are all sorts of shifty characters ordering pizzas with suspicious toppings but at the end of the day you had to admit that when you ordered a cheese pizza with anchovies and olives you got served a cheese pizza with anchovies and olives instead of whatever kind of child porn you expected that to mean.

Listen, this is pointless. If you want to see the glaring holes in the Trump defense:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca12k2qbUQM

And this guy is also looking at their arguments in the best possible light, from a legal perspective.

OMG you're now linking youtube videos in support of your position LMAO. The transformation is complete!

I only watch academic youtube videos.

That guy is an actual lawyer and a good one from what I understand.

Do you realize that there are two reasons for someone to make a video instead of a text post, as far as they are not showing how to lathe stuff etc: 1. they are using their "charisma" (really, providing an experience of talking to someone with a pulse to your average shutin) in place of sound arguments, and 2. they are monetizing the shit out of it.

I understand that if you get high the first thing in the morning, watching those videos while glazed is much more enjoyable than reading, but come on.

No shit he's making money from youtube. He's also non-partisan and a credible lawyer.

Go watch some of his other videos. The guy is completely fine, he just runs a law review channel.

Go watch some of his other videos.

Nope, I only get my lathe information from youtube and refuse to cooperate with this stoner/conspiracy theorist/gamergator drive to legitimatize videos as a legitimate argument format.

If you can't even summarize this, "you have to liek listen to it to be there my dude" then the pot has won.

I should have remembered you're mentally ill after the climate denial arguments tbh.

Me: climate change is real and is driven by human activity, but its effects are very uneven and the media is lying to you about it

Pizza: that's "climate denial arguments". You're mentally ill.

Nigga OK I deny that climate exists, that's what I deny mothafuka

You literally tried to claim climate change was good for the planet.

No, it quite literally was contingent upon that announcement...until this deal was leaked via the whistleblower+the politico article, 2 days after which the money was (completely coincidentally? big thonk) released.

Daddy never leaves a trace, that's why he is the best political criminal.

Hate the game my nibba

Go spread your fucking autism on some one else you unvaccinated vermin.

The rightoid lashes out.

He obviously lied under oath the first time he testified. How has this gotten turned around in you retards' minds that Democrats are in love with Sondland and trust him completely?

Honestly I haven't been following this season at all, I was just trying to encourage pedoshill to keep going.

We already know his moral character is corroded, he worked for Trump

Patrol those thots.

But are his accusers pretty? If not then they are lying whores.

He is a diddler so what you expect

Yeah, it feels kind of wrong giving pizzashill the attention he craves when he's literally a kiddy diddler. Then again it keeps him posting here nonstop which keeps him away from children so it's fine I guess.

Yeah. You gotta keep someone that obsessed with kid diddling and “rightoids” busy. Who knows what the combo of his two passions could lead too.

#MeToo

Only if we have proof that he tried to fuck Trump literally as well

Especially the part where he said he has no evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever.

If that's your reading of that testimony, I suspect you're living in your own reality.

When you add it all up, it looks bad for Trump.

When you add up all the testimony of people literally saying they have no evidence of bribery, extortion of quid pro quo it looks bad for you liberals in 2020.

They literally had to change out the words "quid pro quo" because they were running focus groups and it was determined that you liberals didn't know what that phrase meant, lmao.

They were running this production like a Marvel comic book movie because you liberals are so fucking stunted, lol

When you add up all the testimony of people literally saying they have no evidence of bribery, extortion or quid pro quo it looks bad for you liberals in 2020.

Are you just literally living in your own reality?

Sondland literally testified there was, in fact, a quid pro quo. Legally, Bribery is the outcome of that. That's what that term means. Again - can not stress how completely delusional you are if you think those hearings were good for Trump. You'd have to be so deep in the hyper-partisan echo chamber that you just cut out 85% of what was said.

They literally had to change out the words "quid pro quo" because they were running focus groups and it was determined that you liberals didn't know what that phrase meant, lmao.

Clearly you don't know what it means. If you attempt to withhold congressionally approved aid and trade it for an investigation into your domestic political rivals, you have engaged in a quid pro quo and the legal outcome of that is bribery and or extortion.

Sondland literally testified there was, in fact, a quid pro quo.

Sondland said he has no evidence of a quid pro quo, bribery or extortion. So did every other witness.

Every...single...one.

But you're a Russian Truther Conspiracy Crank, which is one step above a Qtard or a Pizzagater.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/sondland-declares-quid-pro-quo-pundits-call-testimony-damaging-to-trump

Gordon Sondland, who had already changed his testimony once, delivered a torrent of words, but none more important than these: “Was there a quid pro quo?...The answer is yes.”

Furthermore, Mulvany, on live TV:

Q: "But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is: Funding will not flow unless the investigation into the Democratic server happens as well."

Mulvaney: "We do that all the time with foreign policy. We were holding money at the same time for — what was it? The Northern Triangle countries. We were holding up aid at the Northern Triangle countries so that they would change their policies on immigration."

1

Every...single...one.

The evidence that's literally public?

But you're a Russian Truther Conspiracy Crank, which is one step above a Qtard or a Pizzagater.

When have I ever posted anything that claims Trump was an asset of Russia, or said anything other than the fact he was a useful idiot?

Mulvaney "admitting" to something that is perfectly legal and part of the day to day operations of the government isn't evidence of wrongdoing you fucking liberal, lol.

It is not legal for the WH to hold aid that congress approves.

Of course it is. It just has to be for legal reasons.

Take a civics class you fucking zoomer.

And they had no legal reasons.

So your statement is false you fucking moron. It is perfectly legal for the WH to withhold aid that congress approves.

What I said:

professorshillphd 1 point 9 minutes ago I suggest you probably should. No, he doesn't. Congress has the power of the purse, the white house can only hold the aid for 45 days, and he held it for longer than that.

Cool story zoomer. The WH can withhold aid.

Not without a legal reason it can't, and they had none.

Sure they did. Read the testimony.

Not according to state department lawyers.

Oh, how authoritarian of you.

Wrong. SAD!

What if he just changes his testimony again

attempt to withhold congressionally approved aid

The Office of the President has final say on where and even if that money goes anywhere. Take a civics class you fucking zoomer.

I suggest you probably should. No, he doesn't. Congress has the power of the purse, the white house can only hold the aid for 45 days, and he held it for longer than that.

Which is exactly what state department lawyers concluded:

https://www.axios.com/trump-impeachment-ukraine-military-aid-a9be7c06-3ea5-4d9b-801a-1cdf6877cc31.html

State Department lawyers found President Trump and the White House Office of Management and Budget had no legal ground to block the department sending military aid to Ukraine, Bloomberg reports.

lol, maybe you'll get an impeachment this time.

This would have more credibility if the other branches of government charged with oversight of this aid, established under the executive branch (state department, DoD), hadn't already certified that Ukraine was meeting their obligations to qualify for the aid. So is it the case that somehow just the president and his personal attorney are the only people in the US government who have some reason hold up the aid? And that reason was just for the ukrainian government to announce they would investigate hunter biden+burisma, but not actually have to start a real investigation?

It's not Trump's fault that rooting out corruption happens to expose a few liberals. It's kind of like how reality has a conservative bias.

ooo you saucy minx you

C O P E

what do you think of this take?

https://old.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/e2pc6q/tracy_beanz_sondland_didnt_play_ball_so_they_are/

That'd ignore the profitable tactic of keeping a file on people to use when politically convenient.

I hope he starts crying into a microphone like that judge guy.

Nah, you're wrong. It's called oppo research. When you have a political enemy you dig up as much shit as you can to discredit them, no matter how old it is.

It's like all the blackface pictures of Trudeau coming out, or the pedo in Alabama running for Senate. The evidence existed forever and people knew about it, but no one blew it up until it was politically convenient to do so.

Yes. Because if people actually #BELIEVEDSURVIVORS, Kavanaugh would be back at the local bar slowly drinking himself to death.

Friendly reminder that like every example of a proven, fake sexual assault accusation in politics I can think of has come from rightoids.

pizza you can do better than weird lies

What?

The only proven fake sexual assault accusations I've seen = when Wohl tried to frame Mueller and when Keefe tried to plant a fake accusation in the post.

You guys chill on calling him a liar he has lots of stats links and screenshots

Do you live under a rock?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/26/robert-mueller-hoax-how-jacob-wohl-created-sexual-harassment-plot/2993799002/

Here's the Keefe example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

I'm not reading all that.

He's still trying to prove that he wasn't sexually assulted as a child. This is just his weird attempt at making things right.

I have proof he molests kids. Screenshot and link.

Imagine using a guy who is only known for being a blue checkmark to prove your point 😂

Your post is indelible in the hippocampus

Dirty Uncle Joe involves in some funny business

Gordon was the funniest part of this whole impeachment hearing so far

https://youtu.be/Ft0_mn3XLcI

Sondland was definitely the most entertaining witness even if he is a sex pest. The most interesting part of the hearings imo was seeing a bunch of totally different personalities react to the same pressure.

I loved the three amigos bit

Political theater is a tale as old as governments. And this one is what it is, but my money is something else trumping the Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/military/gallagher-case-reveals-trump-s-ignorance-military-fired-navy-secretary-n1092931

https://thehill.com/policy/defense/472349-ex-navy-secretary-slams-trumps-shocking-and-unprecedented-intervention-in-new

Even if it really all transpires "behind the scenes" this will be what ends this.

You think the Navy scandal is going to be bigger than the Ukraine one? It may piss off a lot of vets but the implications aren't as severe

It has the potential to be bigger in the media at least. None of Trump's supporters are going to be swayed by the Ukrainian scandal, although it technically is bigger and more damning.

The Navy thing is going to sway military and veteran opinions who are usually pro-Trump.

None of Trump's supporters are going to be swayed by the Ukrainian scandal, although it technically is bigger and more damning.

Do you think they're going to be swayed by anything at this point, though? The guy insulted a dead vet and his family before he was even elected, and I can guarantee you that his base doesn't see anything wrong with someone on active duty desecrating a corpse or knifing a combatant or whatever. Remember what happened during the Abu Ghraib scandal? Nobody gave a shit who wasn't already opposed to the war

I mean after even journalists lost their mind on live TV "we did it" in 2008, rightoids have fully switched to the whole "refuse to lose even if you can't win" strategy, I wouldn't hold my breath for anyone to give an inch.

I doubt many will but it seems like the war crimes thing is easier to grasp, I guess. It's more of a moral black and white issue so maybe it will at least sway some of the people who are on the fence about impeachment anyways.

It the grand scene of geopolitics, Ukraine is worse, but the other pisses off some people in the wrong place.

Listen I’m sure you meant well when you posted this but I think you might be retarded 😔

Maybe true, but on the plus side, at least I'm not quite as retarded as a trump supporter.

Sondland's expertise with woman is why Trump made him the Ambassador to a bunch of women and feminine men in Europe.

Weird that it seems to be no common thread that runs between any of these sexual predators like Sondland, Weinstein, Louis (Székely) CK, Al Franken, Ezekiel Hebrewstein, and others. If only we could find out if that had something statistically and demographically unusual we might come to the bottom of this.

t.Roy Moore voter

All old mayos are pedos

I disagree. Depending upon these seemingly constantly changing definitions of gender, sex and man.

Just because someone has a penis doesn't make them a man, right?

And a male is supposed to be able curl up in a made throw of children's video and that be ok?

And it's hard to keep up with the changing meanings, but no real man, by my definition, coerces women to watch him jack off into a potted plant.

Or be a shitty 10% funny comedian and make really bad sex jokes as staple of their shtick.

Moids are disgusting

We should start to judge rape allegations based on the nose shape of the accused.

Nice

We should start to judge rape allegations based on the nose shape of the accused.

doublepost

You forgot Roy Mooreowitz, Bill Cosbycohen, and R. Kellystein

Pizzashill is absolutely sperging out

^ Whenever some rightoid says something akin to the above you know they are getting shrekt

Right on cue, pizza's little orbiter jumps to his defense. Did you cashapp him this month you little faggggot.

The two other retards sperging out with pizza are mad that pizza is being pizza. 🤔

Gaslight him long enough and he'll end up copying and pasting the entire internet.

Uh huh.

I'm just fucking with him as this clearly chaps his ass. Obviously there is no real exchange of ideas with him.

PS isn’t sentient. He’s like some sort of bot. So he won’t even acknowledge this bc it would short circuit him. If this story were the other way around, you best believe he wouldn’t even take the time to wipe the Cheetos dust off his fingers to post.

He’s like some sort of bot.

I doubt pizzashill could pass the turing test.

Uh huh.

^ Exhibit A

Word is you paid $499 for some of pizza's bathwater. He even wrote "Owning the Trumpers for my boy Matues49" on the little greeting card he sent along with it.

dial no. 8

It's a DDF tard. Kill it with fire

Nothing quite fills up a thread like pizza

Just doing our duty o7

Wow 80 comments already and about 30 of them are pizzashill. Really living up to his name

Sondland looks like an actual wet thumb.

You're right. Sondland does look a lot like Mama June the human thumb.

This entire thread is unworthy of r/drama . So much serious posting, it sickens me. Nuke this.

It's pizzashill posting and it's part of our heritage you piece of trash.

Y'all.

A firing line sounds like a good idea. This is not even ironic seriousposting anymore.

I have a confession. I never read these articles you tards post, I just infer some general meaning from the title and post a comment about centrism

If it's not a Twitter or reddit link, I don't click links on are drama

Ew

Ah, the old Kavanaugh play.