Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

  • Thread starter Thread starter dvdjs
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Yes, I know, but you would do better to read it for yourself. Whatever I might post, you will not find the answer to your liking or sufficient. So why should I waste my time.
 
Last edited:
It is a get out of jail free card? Or
Did the arbitrary quota of investigations expire, and now Trump has some kind of immunity for impeachable conduct.
I hear this argument all the time and it seems popular because on Fox, it gets said over and over and goes unchallenged
 
Last edited:
You have to concede, you do fail to understand. I have listened to words like " fake" since Trump became president. I think one time with the media, he admitted it means," against him."
 
7_Sorrows said:
Yes, I know, but you would do better to read it for yourself.
Click to expand...
I can read for myself whatever you post.
7_Sorrows said:
Whatever I might post, you will not find the answer to your liking or sufficient. So why should I waste my time.
Click to expand...
It’s interesting to me how someone would make a claim that is verifiable and then not be able to provide a single resource backing it up.
 
drcube said:
…
40.png
7_Sorrows:
If you aren’t afraid of the truth please do your research
on the FISA warrants, the Steele Dossier and Michael
Avenatti. Learn the real facts. @drcube
Click to expand...
Well, I figured you could point out what was proven false in the Steele dossier if such a thing existed. I guess it doesn’t.
Click to expand...
Actually, the burden is on you, as it is in all legal cases, to prove the claims true.

The FBI and Comey said none of the alleged information could be validated and Steele admitted in a British Court that the dossier was salacious and was never intended to be made public. That was his defense against a defamation lawsuit brought by Aleksej Gubarev, chief executive XBT Holdings.
Christopher Steele, the former British spy who wrote the infamous anti-Donald Trump dossier, acknowledges that a sensational charge his sources made about a tech company CEO and Democratic Party hacking is unverified.

In a court filing, Mr. Steele also says his accusations against the president and his aides about a supposed Russian hacking conspiracy were never supposed to be made public, much less posted in full on a website for the world to see on Jan. 10.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/apr/25/christopher-steele-admits-dossier-charge-unverifie/

So, clearly, if the individual who created the dossier doesn’t stand by it, that is tantamount to disproving it, no?
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
Actually, the burden is on you, as it is in all legal cases, to prove the claims true.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you follow the discussion from the beginning instead of reading one post and sticking your comments in without understanding the context, I asked if anything was proven false in the Steele Dossier. So far, no one has given me anything.
 
HarryStotle said:
So, clearly, if the individual who created the dossier doesn’t stand by it, that is tantamount to disproving it, no?
Click to expand...
Guy behind the dossier: we needed more investigation to see if the claims in the dossier were true.

The conservative media: It was improper to start additional investigations based on the dossier!
 
Last edited:
drcube said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
Actually, the burden is on you, as it is in all legal cases, to prove the claims true.
Click to expand...
Actually, if you follow the discussion from the beginning instead of reading one post and sticking your comments in without understanding the context, I asked if anything was proven false in the Steele Dossier. So far, no one has given me anything.
Click to expand...
There are lots of things that might be alleged about you that couldn’t possibly be “proven false,” which is why the standard is innocent until proven guilty.

It is much harder to prove a falsehood false than to prove an allegation true, especially when the allegation is without specifics. That is why the standard to anyone who understands the law is to provide positive evidence to prove allegations true, not to prove false claims false.

What you have is Steele admitting the dossier he created cannot be verified.

By the Nov 8 election Steele had written 15 memos for the dossier. He didn’t attempt to provide justification for any of those at his trial. They were all fabricated or he would have provided some justification for at least a few of them.

The FBI, during an October meeting in Rome, offered Steele $50,000 to continue investigating Mr. Trump. He declined. Why would he if they were at all plausible?

The New York Times admits not a single allegation in the dossier has been substantiated, and that a number have been disproved.
There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians. In fact, some of those claims have been challenged with supporting evidence. For instance, Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, produced his passport to rebut the dossier’s claim that he had secret meetings in Prague with a Russian official last year.
The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It - The New York Times
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
JapaneseKappa said:
40.png
HarryStotle:
So, clearly, if the individual who created the dossier doesn’t stand by it, that is tantamount to disproving it, no?
Click to expand...
Guy behind the dossier: we needed more investigation to see if the claims in the dossier were true.

The conservative media: It was improper to start additional investigations based on the dossier!
Click to expand...
The Mueller Special Counsel was a two year long foray into “additional investigations.” It came up empty.

As to the “Guy behind the dossier” – who declined $50 000 to “see if the claims in the dossier were true” – it makes more sense to assume the “Guy” knew something that you don’t seem to grasp, that if the “additional investigations” could provide anything at all he would have gone for $50k rather than get into the FBI’s bad books as a terrible source/investigator. This from a Guy who named some Russian contacts and could have followed them up quite easily.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
There are lots of things that might be alleged about you that couldn’t possibly be “proven false,” which is why the standard is innocent until proven guilty .

It is much harder to prove a falsehood false than to prove an allegation true, especially when the allegation is without specifics. That is why the standard to anyone who understands the law is to provide positive evidence to prove allegations true, not to prove false claims false.

What you have is Steele admitting the dossier he created cannot be verified.

By the Nov 8 election Steele had written 15 memos for the dossier. He didn’t attempt to provide justification for any of those at his trial. They were all fabricated.

The FBI, during an October meeting in Rome, offered Steele $50,000 to continue investigating Mr. Trump. He declined. Why would he if they were at all plausible?

The New York Times admits not a single allegation in the dossier has been substantiated, and that a number have been disproved.
There has been no public corroboration of the salacious allegations against Mr. Trump, nor of the specific claims about coordination between his associates and the Russians. In fact, some of those claims have been challenged with supporting evidence. For instance, Mr. Trump’s longtime personal lawyer, Michael D. Cohen, produced his passport to rebut the dossier’s claim that he had secret meetings in Prague with a Russian official last year.
The Trump Dossier: What We Know and Who Paid for It - The New York Times
Click to expand...
You see, that’s what I was asking for. If anything had actually been proved false. Now, next time, follow along with the discussion before posting.
Click to expand...
 
drcube said:
You see, that’s what I was asking for. If anything had actually been proved false. Now, next time, follow along with the discussion before posting.
Click to expand...
So you were asking for what you knew to be trying to squeeze water from a rock or pushing it uphill with a rake, and you want me to “follow along?”

At least we now know that your understanding of futility comes from the same mould as the Democrat quest for impeachment of Trump.
 
Last edited:
I think you are much better at defending arrogance than I. It is not a trait I appreciate in others, nor do I find especially appealing.

I mean seriously, defending the Democratic witch hunt over & over again, even when there is solid proof Schiff et all. presented a baseless impeachment to the Senate and then expected the Senate to do the work they weren’t willing to do themselves.

Please save your outrage and insults for another place & time. We here have heard it all from you. I would be angry with Trump IF he had done something wrong. However Trump did not do what the Dems accused him of and the Dems, once again, were not able to back up their claims as evidence by the vote in the Senate.

I know you (collective you) feel the Republicans some how robbed the Dems of a victory, but 51 smart people felt the Dems did not make their case. It just like the election in 2016, the Dems lost and they need to just get over it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top