Im not the one trying to make the moronic case that one has to utter the words quid pro quo in order for there to be one. It is mind blowing that you’re serious
No he didnt, he looked at the evidence found dozen error and concluded their was no major bias toward trump
he’s being serious too
That would be using the same standard that Horowitz used in order to say he could not determine that the FISA “mistakes” were not due to bias. I agree, that is moronic. But it is also inconsistent with the standard being used for proof in against Trump.
They should employ the same standard.
What is also moronic is your statement that I said Trump would have to utter the words quid pro quo in order for there to be one. You made that up. I never said that.
Seriously. If you overheard your president talking to Ukraine and thought it sounded like it might be a quid pro quo, wouldn’t you report it?
I mean, let it be sorted out whether it is or not but shouldn’t you report it?
Good luck getting a straight answer to THAT question! 
His question has nothing to do with my statement.
Non-partisian my ass.
Riiiiight.
The point I was attempting to make was whether or not the whistleblower was partisan, shouldn’t they bring it up if there are hints of a quid pro quo? Should they remain silent?
