President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Cody montana

Cody montana wrote: »

What do you think the Bidens have to say on trumps abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?
Also why would Hunter Biden indicate Joe Bidens “Quid pro quo”, seeing as he said it publicly?

So no response?

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

I know the democtat's outright lies and contrived misleading statements given as their 'case' should be investigated.

The democrats opened the door to Hunter Biden's actions in the matter in their prostituon prosecution. If he's not called as a witness the Senate now has reason to investigate him to prove the validity of their statements.

Point to me exactly what lies the house managers told then.

It's ok, I'll wait

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

So no response?

No obuse. Already answered.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

Point to me exactly what lies the house managers told then.

It's ok, I'll wait

I see you didnt watch Trump's lawyers opening 2 hour arguments. Watch it and you'll get the answers to your question.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

I see you didnt watch Trump's lawyers opening 2 hour arguments. Watch it and you'll get the answers to your question.

No, I'm asking you specifically because I challenged your point. So again, point to me exactly what lies the house managers told

mcmoustache

duploelabs wrote: »

No, I'm asking you specifically because I challenged your point. So again, point to me exactly what lies the house managers told

They wanted to claim that Schiff lied about what Trump was saying in the transcript. Unfortunately they left in the bit where Schiff said that he was paraphrasing.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

No, I'm asking you specifically because I challenged your point. So again, point to me exactly what lies the house managers told

I pointed you to exactly the answers to your question. Do you want me to quote the entire 2 hours of where they laid it out?

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

No obuse. Already answered.

Yeah, that right.
When challenged, just stick with the GOP talking points.

notobtuse

mcmoustache wrote: »

They wanted to claim that Schiff lied about what Trump was saying in the transcript. Unfortunately they left in the bit where Schiff said that he was paraphrasing.

He only said that after he was called out on his lies.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

I pointed you to exactly the answers to your question. Do you want me to quote the entire 2 hours of where they laid it out?

No, you said the house managers lie in their speeches, I asked you to point out exactly where they lied, yet you've failed to do so.

Citation matters

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

No, you said the house managers lie in their speeches, I asked you to point out exactly where they lied, yet you've failed to do so.

Citation matters

That's what the entire 2 hours of what Trump' lawyers did. Go watch it!

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

That's what the entire 2 hours of what Trump' lawyers did. Go watch it!

I don't care what they said, I'm asking you what lies the house managers lied. Gwan, flex that vast cerebral knowledge of the events unfolding because by saying that I should watch the rep defence just shows how you (not them) havn't a rashers about what you're talking about

mcmoustache

notobtuse wrote: »

He only said that after he was called out on his lies.

If you had watched, like you're asking others to do, you'd know that the remarks were prefaced. Here it is in black and white.

It reads like a classic organized crime shakedown. Shorn of its rambling character and in not so many words, this is the essence of what the president communicates. We’ve been very good to your country, very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what? I don’t see much reciprocity here. I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand. Lots of it. On this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, not just any people, I am going to put you in touch with the attorney general of the United States, my Attorney General Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy. You’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking. And so I’m only going to say this a few more times. In a few more ways. And by the way, don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked. This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine. It would be funny if it wasn’t such a graphic betrayal of the president’s oath of office. But as it does represent a real betrayal, there’s nothing the president says here that is in America’s interest after all.

mcmoustache

duploelabs wrote: »

I don't care what they said, I'm asking you what lies the house managers lied. Gwan, flex that vast cerebral knowledge of the events unfolding because by saying that I should watch the rep defence just shows how you (not them) havn't a rashers about what you're talking about

Good luck with that. If the last few years has taught me anything, it's that some posters are incapable of anything more advanced than repeating slogans and talking points.

notobtuse

duploelabs wrote: »

I don't care what they said, I'm asking you what lies the house managers lied. Gwan, flex that vast cerebral knowledge of the events unfolding because by saying that I should watch the rep defence just shows how you (not them) havn't a rashers about what you're talking about

Oh, bother. The two biggest lies are the two articles of impeachment... one that accuses him of demanding Ukraine to investigate Biden, and the other that he obstructed Congress, by doing what all presidents before him have done. The lawyers showed, by way of clips of testimony, statements and emails, that the entire case presented by democrats is built on some crazy ability they have to read people's minds.

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. The two biggest lies are the two articles of impeachment... one that accuses him of demanding Ukraine to investigate Biden, and the other that he obstructed Congress, by doing what all presidents before him have done. The lawyers showed, by way of clips of testimony, statements and emails, that the entire case presented by democrats is built on some crazy ability they have to read people's minds.

Again, you're not pointing out the exact lies you claimed the house managers lied. A little short on details (and facts)

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

and the other that he obstructed Congress, by doing what all presidents before him have done.

No president has ever ordered the executive flat out not to corroborate with Impeachment proceedings.

King Trump has set the precedent.

Aided by the Republican Party.

RobbingBandit

President of Amerika

Cui Bono

Outlaw Pete

Boggles wrote: »

You have to be on a wind up?

Cody montana wrote: »

He is ..

Schiff ranted for 24 very long hours and all he had were lies, false narratives and other's presumptions. Not sure why you would think someone who points that out is on a 'wind up' given that it is a common view of what he did in the Senate (outside of leftist bubbles at least):


https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1220073661501100033


The above is not the only lying he did either as there was a ton of what he said which was effectively lying by omission and Trump's legal team did an excellent job yesterday of illustrating that. Even Chris Wallace (who hates Trump) called out Schiff for how he sneakily misrepresented what others have said in order to fit his deceitful narrative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vd8s4hgjuA

Boggles wrote: »

"Head on a Pike"

Jesus could it be any clearer to them.

Yes, it could be clearer. Having an actual witness saying that they witnessed this being said would be a start.


https://twitter.com/TPMLiveWire/status/1221084345651384320

mcmoustache wrote: »

Good luck with that. If the last few years has taught me anything, it's that some posters are incapable of anything more advanced than repeating slogans and talking points.

Ah would ya stop. And what of the users who repeat democrat talking points non-stop, such as saying 'Trump asked Ukraine for help with a political opponent'. What is that if not just regurgitating a baseless talking point. Before that it was Russian-Collusion talking points for three damn years and of course the laughable 'He called Nazis fine people' in between. All of which has been shown to be baloney!

banie01 wrote: »

Not a single piece of exculpatory evidence presented by the WH defence.

Well, first of all: it's not their job to prove he's innocent, burden of proof is on them (or at least it should be, these days one has to wonder) but yes, there was lots of evidence put forward. The call transcript for a start, which clearly shows that Trump did not do what the democrats claim he did. Statements were read out from three members of the Ukraine government also, which contradicted what the articles aledge, including from President Zelensky. Trump' team painstakingly went through the timeline highlighting the actual facts (not presumptions and conspiracy theories) and with each one the democrat narrative fell further and further apart.

Let' be honest, all the democrats have are their agenda saturated inferences. They have no case here. It's laughable. Everything Trump said on the call was appropriate. As POTUS he's entitled to ask Zelensky to get to the bottom of what what went on in 2016 with regards to Ukraine's role in the Russia-Collusion hoax (which was almost successful in it's objective, just not quite) and to also look into all that was being said (in the New York Times and other publications) about Hunter Biden (who he mentioned first, not Joe) Burisma and the allegations that all might not have been above board there.

Come on, it's all just yet another hail mary attempt at getting someone they don't like out of the Oval Office. For three years it's been going on. Doubt it will stop now either. They'll just move on to whatever else some Obama loyalist leaker in White House can scrape up (between releasing books under the guise of 'The Resistance' that is). Doubt they'll manage it though. He's doing a fantastic job in almost every area and the American people aren't buying that the impeachment attempt is genuine. They see it for what it is.

woohoo!!!

Release the pertinent evidence, the call recording and transcript, all of it. Release the pertinent documents. If this was above board, why hide this info. It's a trial and the vast majority want to hear witnesses. Let Rudy come forth and set it on the record, what he's doing in Ukraine, who he's working with, why exactly are U.S. people there untrustworthy, with some actual evidence.

Boggles

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Schiff ranted for 24 very long hours and all he had were lies, false narratives and other's presumptions. Not sure why you would think someone who points that out is on a 'wind up' given that it is a common view of what he did in the Senate (outside of leftist bubbles at least):


https://twitter.com/KimStrassel/status/1220073661501100033


The above is not the only lying he did either as there was a ton of what he said which was effectively lying by omission and Trump's legal team did an excellent job yesterday of illustrating that. Even Chris Wallace (who hates Trump) called out Schiff for how he sneakily misrepresented what others have said in order to fit his deceitful narrative:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vd8s4hgjuA

Yes, it could be clearer. Having an actual witness saying that they witnessed this being said would be a start.


https://twitter.com/TPMLiveWire/status/1221084345651384320



Ah would ya stop. And what of the users who repeat democrat talking points non-stop, such as saying 'Trump asked Ukraine for help with a political opponent'. What is that if not just regurgitating a baseless talking point. Before that it was Russian-Collusion talking points for three damn years and of course the laughable 'He called Nazis fine people' in between. All of which has been shown to be baloney!



Well, first of all: it's not their job to prove he's innocent, burden of proof is on them (or at least it should be, these days one has to wonder) but yes, there was lots of evidence put forward. The call transcript for a start, which clearly shows that Trump did not do what the democrats claim he did. Statements were read out from three members of the Ukraine government also, which contradicted what the articles aledge, including from President Zelensky. Trump' team painstakingly went through the timeline highlighting the actual facts (not presumptions and conspiracy theories) and with each one the democrat narrative fell further and further apart.

Let' be honest, all the democrats have are their agenda saturated inferences. They have no case here. It's laughable. Everything Trump said on the call was appropriate. As POTUS he's entitled to ask Zelensky to get to the bottom of what what went on in 2016 with regards to Ukraine's role in the Russia-Collusion hoax (which was almost successful in it's objective, just not quite) and to also look into all that was being said (in the New York Times and other publications) about Hunter Biden (who he mentioned first, not Joe) Burisma and the allegations that all might not have been above board there.

Come on, it's all just yet another hail mary attempt at getting someone they don't like out of the Oval Office. For three years it's been going on. Doubt it will stop now either. They'll just move on to whatever else some Obama loyalist leaker in White House can scrape up (between releasing books under the guise of 'The Resistance' that is). Doubt they'll manage it though. He's doing a fantastic job in almost every area and the American people aren't buying that the impeachment attempt is genuine. They see it for what it is.

If anyone was wondering what "Alternative Facts" look like.

Full House!

duploelabs

Eurosport30 wrote: »

Outlaw Pete is usually correct when he is involved in these prolonged back and forth discussions. Based on the points he's made here it looks like he's right again.

I suspect the likes of Boggles are arguing on emotion and bias, and ideological opposition to Trump rather than being focused on truth and facts.

Long time reader, first time poster?

duploelabs

duploelabs wrote: »

Long time reader, first time poster?

Rereg or sock puppet?

Some link dumpers on here are on record to having multiple social media accounts so they can troll people

Outlaw Pete

Igotadose wrote: »

Using the power of the USG to promote personal gain is a high crime.

Well, it's a good thing he didn't do that then isn't it.

It was a mess of the Bidens own making. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian all had articles surrounding Hunter's appointment to the board of Burisma at the time given how bad it looked, all highlighting the clear appearance of a conflict of interest. The owner's shady past with regards to corruption being what really rang bells though. Was inevitable that one day there would be a US investigation given what transpired.

One might say the timing was convenient but a new anti-corruption president was elected to Ukraine and so the opportunity presented itself for 1) the US to be able to once and for get to the bottom of what went on in 2016 between the DNC, the Obama Administration, and certain Ukrainians (especially with regards to Washington meetings in Jan 2016 - which the "whistleblower" attended by the way) and 2) the Biden-Burisma controversy.

You had two presidents, both who ran on draining their own particular swamps, speaking for the first time about what they wanted from one another (that's how foreign policy works, there's always a transactionary aspect to it by its very nature). Therefore, with this in mind, you simply can't expect Trump not to raise the issues he did given that there had been Ukraine investigations which involved the last US vice president (reopened after Joe's bragging about withholding $1billion in aid) and also a court case surrounding Ukraine's apparent interference in the 2016 US election.

So, quite frankly it would be absurd for Trump not to have asked Zelensky to look into these matters now that there was finally a Ukraine president who genuinely appeared to want to tackle Ukraine corruption.

CastleCottage

It seems some people are so biased by their hatred for Trump that they are unwilling to examine the evidence impartially.

notobtuse

Boggles wrote: »

If anyone was wondering what "Alternative Facts" look like.

Full House!

LOL. When all else fails revert to nonsense?

notobtuse

woohoo!!! wrote: »

Release the pertinent evidence, the call recording and transcript, all of it. Release the pertinent documents. If this was above board, why hide this info. It's a trial and the vast majority want to hear witnesses. Let Rudy come forth and set it on the record, what he's doing in Ukraine, who he's working with, why exactly are U.S. people there untrustworthy, with some actual evidence.

So the democrats need witnesses to make their case? Leads one to believe they're admitting they had no case when they impeached Trump.

Why did they not try and get those witnesses they so desperately need to testify when they had total control of the House impeachment process?

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

So the democrats need witnesses to make their case? Leads one to believe they're admitting they had no case when they impeached Trump.

Why did they not try and get those witnesses they so desperately need to testify when they had total control of the House impeachment process?

They did call those witnesses but they're blocked. Have you an issue with calling them for the senate trail? If Trump did nothing wrong why not release the call recordings?

blinding

MonkeyTennis wrote: »

I impeached Donald Trump and all I got was this lousy pen

Nice one.:D

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Why did they not try and get those witnesses they so desperately need to testify when they had total control of the House impeachment process?

They did, anyway this has been dealt with on thread all ready.

Boggles wrote: »

No president has ever ordered the executive flat out not to corroborate with Impeachment proceedings.

King Trump has set the precedent.

Aided by the Republican Party.