M
Maximus1
Guest
People nullify facts. They seek sources that offer WHAT THEY WISH the facts to be. This is bias. Add to it that virtually nobody read the report critically.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
Maximus1
Guest
Never hear that from me. But does it matter that I write that? Or did you make up your mind despite my denial?
I can write an argument and another person can write theirs. The strength of argument is not given equality. One might be stronger than the other. Only the right to have an opinion is respected. A person can have a weak opinion.
Here is a good rule of thumb. Try to stick with the argument and not tribal ideas about who the writer is.
I can write an argument and another person can write theirs. The strength of argument is not given equality. One might be stronger than the other. Only the right to have an opinion is respected. A person can have a weak opinion.
Here is a good rule of thumb. Try to stick with the argument and not tribal ideas about who the writer is.
Last edited:
T
Theo520
Guest
It’s worse than that, they turned over every rock looking for any crime they could find.After a two year investigation Mueller found zero evidence of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign. His report said as much as did Barr’s summary.
All they could find were old IRS transgressions not related to the campaign (Manafort & Gates), a campaign finance violation (Cohen?), and several more on incorrect statements to FBI/Congress, charged with misstatements but not an underlying crime. There was no criminal activity there by the campaign team or Trump himself.
J
JButky
Guest
Yes, the Dems impeachment charade certainly went out of their way to do this very thing…They seek sources that offer WHAT THEY WISH the facts to be.
M
Maximus1
Guest
What for example?
The witnesses were all members of the Trump administration. Some were political appointees of Trump. One gave him a millionn bucks
The witnesses were all members of the Trump administration. Some were political appointees of Trump. One gave him a millionn bucks
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Did you ever read about Manafort’s work in the UKRAINE. If you didn’t, read what his own kids wrote. Then wonder why Trump hired him. ( If you think this is just about old IRS stuff.)
Why do you suppose they metbwith Russian agents to give them polling into and campaign strategy in BATTLEGROUND STATES.
IMAGINE all of the " good reasons" to give this to Putin. Share the good ones but be warned. If they are absurd, people have the right to chuckle
Why do you suppose they metbwith Russian agents to give them polling into and campaign strategy in BATTLEGROUND STATES.
IMAGINE all of the " good reasons" to give this to Putin. Share the good ones but be warned. If they are absurd, people have the right to chuckle
Last edited:
J
JButky
Guest
Oh I don’t know… How about the whole Dem narrative that resulted in the articles of impeachment which suppressed, lied, and withheld facts and made up their own reasons, mocking due process, and then not allowing their despicable deed to go to resolution? And that’s just the tip of the iceberg! More news today of Dems keeping transcripts of their hearings secret, even from Congressmen!. And lots more stuff too, simply because facts stand contrary to their narrative…
Open your eyes! This impeachment is such a joke.
Open your eyes! This impeachment is such a joke.
H
Horton
Guest
Yes they do. We have seen this so many times of the last 3 or so years from the left. Nancy Pelosi called it, they have been working to get Trump out for 2 1/2 years. With the impeachment farce the Dems went in opposition of the FACTS, and still created articles of impeachment. Here are the FACTS of that case. FACT - Not one witness could substantiate the allegation of quid pro quo, not one. FACT - The Committee failed to follow through on it’s legal remedies to compel testimony. FACT - Trump is not subordinate to Congress and therefore cannot be made to answer to them just because they tell him too.People nullify facts. They seek sources that offer WHAT THEY WISH the facts to be. This is bias
The left is guilty of your charge of
No evidence has been presented to substantiate what the Dems have alleged, nothing at all. There is a lot of supposition and projecting, but zero evidence.WHAT THEY WISH the facts to be
I know you will respond with the usual argument for why I am wrong, stating my facts are wrong, that I couldn’t possibly know what is really going on as I am an unenlightened Trump supporter. That is fine. I wouldn’t expect anything less.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The FACTS are simple enough.Yes they do.
Trump requested the favor from another country of investigations that would help his 2020 campaign. The case is clear enough that there is no other reason than political advantage for the request. Hours after the request was made, an authorized and properly vetted aid was put on hold. Ukraine was informed by Sondland that public announcement of the investigation would be sufficient to get the aid released. When the story was about to blow Trump made a clumsly effort to cover-up his apprently-recognized guilt. Trump resisted the investigation, ordering those with the most direct access to Trump not to appear before the House which has the sole power of impeachment.
Enough for impeachment.
The Senate can require an end to the stonewalling and gather additional testimony from key persons. . That would be a good faith demonstration of the impartiality that it will be sworn to uphold. Then the jury will decide. If, like the American public, only 55% think that he should be removed, then he will acquitted.
J
JButky
Guest
Unfortunately, these are not facts so much as presumptions and created narrative. There is no link to helping the campaign and was shown to be not personal in nature; The hold was corrected by OMB to be much before the “call”. And Sondland’s testimony was professed to be his own and not factual…The FACTS are simple enough.
But the fake news media leaves the facts out to leave to be sucked in by their lie…
E
Ender
Guest
Trump requested that Ukraine investigate corruption. It is ironic that everyone assumes he meant that Biden should be investigated, yet those who assert this also claim that Biden did nothing wrong. So what’s the position here: that Biden was corrupt and investigation was warranted, or that Biden was not corrupt and therefore was not the target? Or is it just that even if Biden was corrupt it was wrong of Trump to call for him to be investigated because his candidacy renders him exempt from justice?Trump requested the favor from another country of investigations that would help his 2020 campaign.
M
Maximus1
Guest
How can you keep a transcript secret? You mean a hearing transcript? The ones fully disclosed a month ago?
What due process argument is there?
What suppressed, lied or withheld fact?
Just because they say stuff as fact does not mean it is. Trump has stonewalled. The Senate is helping.
THE TRIAL HAS NOT YET STARTED. Give me a break.
Republicans fully participated and cross examined in those hearings. THESE ARE TRUMP PEOPLE TESTIFYING.
What due process argument is there?
What suppressed, lied or withheld fact?
Just because they say stuff as fact does not mean it is. Trump has stonewalled. The Senate is helping.
THE TRIAL HAS NOT YET STARTED. Give me a break.
Republicans fully participated and cross examined in those hearings. THESE ARE TRUMP PEOPLE TESTIFYING.
Last edited:
M
Maximus1
Guest
Trump do not ask Ukraine to investigate curruption. And you cannot make it so after the fact.
And Biden was the subject of the call because he was Trump’s political rival. Period.
Besides we know Trump wanted a press conference not an actual investigation. Besmirch was the purpose. The only purpose
And Biden was the subject of the call because he was Trump’s political rival. Period.
Besides we know Trump wanted a press conference not an actual investigation. Besmirch was the purpose. The only purpose
M
Maximus1
Guest
Sondeland confirmed the quid pro quo. So did Mulvany. The rest of the witnesses were consistent.
That’s just a fact. In addition there is substantial competent circumstantial evidence that proves the claim. Including the phone call which I not an actual transcript but still damning.
The impeachment facts began in 2019. 2 1/2 years is not relevant.
The Committee was stonewalled. There is Executive privilege but you must assert it. Trump didn’t.
Instead he asserted a non existent blanket block of witnesses and documents.
To go to the court, Takes time. If the matter is remanded in 2020 it is still not resolved. Then Executive privilege question by question. And then he still says no. Another 1-2 years.
That would be a travesty. Had he properly asserted privilege you have a point
That’s just a fact. In addition there is substantial competent circumstantial evidence that proves the claim. Including the phone call which I not an actual transcript but still damning.
The impeachment facts began in 2019. 2 1/2 years is not relevant.
The Committee was stonewalled. There is Executive privilege but you must assert it. Trump didn’t.
Instead he asserted a non existent blanket block of witnesses and documents.
To go to the court, Takes time. If the matter is remanded in 2020 it is still not resolved. Then Executive privilege question by question. And then he still says no. Another 1-2 years.
That would be a travesty. Had he properly asserted privilege you have a point
Last edited:
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Actually, Trump requested a foreign power help him against an American political opponent using American foreign aid as a lever. That’s a fact.Trump requested that Ukraine investigate corruption.
When you consider that, it is easy to see why he was impeached. That’s a misuse of presidential power for personal aggrandizement.
H
Horton
Guest
I guess the left msm must have taken a break when this testimony was given. Sondeland admitted he ASSUMED it was quid pro quo and in reality Trump said, when asked by Sondeland what he wanted, Trump said he wanting NOTHING.Sondeland confirmed the quid pro quo
Now you may believe this testimony but you can’t deny the FACT that it is the testimony.
H
Horton
Guest
This is NOT a fact, it was an assumption by the left and proven in their own hearings that it did not happen. Not one witness was able to provide evidence that it happened.Actually, Trump requested a foreign power help him against an American political opponent using American foreign aid as a lever. That’s a fact
What is reported on leftist msn is not FACT or evidence, most of the time it’s not even real news.
H
Horton
Guest
But now Nancy hanging on to the articles of impeachment in to 2020 is okay? Why is that not a travesty?If the matter is remanded in 2020 it is still not resolved. Then Executive privilege question by question. And then he still says no. Another 1-2 years.
That would be a travesty.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Well, when you look at the testimony of all the witnesses, most would say that it is a fact and it warrants impeachment. You are kind of quibbling here. Logic says that we do not criticize the talker, we assess what was said.This is NOT a fact, it was an assumption by the left and proven in their own hearings that it did not happen. Not one witness was able to provide evidence that it happened.
C
CradleRC58
Guest
It’s her own quid pro quo. Withholding articles of impeachment until Mitch caves lol
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.