Impeachment of Donald J. Trump

[Maximus1]

There were foundational facts supporting conclusions.
There Sondland gave Trump a million bucks and everything to loose testifying to quid pro quo.

 

[dvdjs]

There is plenty of evidence to support it.

You have cited none.

actual FACTS proving the Dems case, of which there are NON

Facts have been recounted; you seem to be ignoring them.

without a doubt,

There is not such thing as a standard opf “beyond doubt”
Criminal cases have a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Your alternative scenario stretched the bounds of reasonableness. Moreover, in an impeachment trial, is the standard of preponderance of the evidence not sufficient?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Everybody here know the definition of insanity?
Me thinks it’s being played out here and on other threads dedicated to Trump. Same back and forth over and over and over…:woman_facepalming:t2:

 

[Maximus1]

There is no such thing as ," an authentic transcript of the actual call."
Are you aware of that?
Regardless the words Biden is conclusive. The word Curruption does not appear.
With 350 million in America and another 25 or so in Ukraine, the odds are about 370 million to one interpreting Biden as Curruption.
Biden is the opponent out of 370 million. Just ridiculous to deny it was a " favor" that was political help.
Of course you have Trump’s concern only for the big things which means Biden but that was obvious.
And the quid is for every American who wants truth. And clearly Trump hiding key witnesses and documents is hiding truth by definition.

 

[Theo520]

 

[Theo520]

I’m becoming conviced Trump tricked the Dems into impeaching him. Swing voters are leaning his way and donations to his campaign are now rocking.

He’s a tricky one, always tricking the Democrats into doing stupid things. Putin probably has something to do with it too .

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dvdjs]

Swing voters are leaning his way

So you say. Is there data for this, or just cartoons?

 

[Theo520]

So you say. Is there data for this, or just cartoons?

You clearly aren’t reading the forum posts, since it has been supported.

Here’s more examples

Loading…

www.axios.com

Loading…

www.cnn.com

 

[Horton]

There were foundational facts supporting conclusions.

There was nothing more than speculation and a so-called whistleblower Schiff used to make an allegation. The fact from the whole thing is that Trump called the president of Ukraine. That is all.

Facts have been recounted; you seem to be ignoring them.

No, facts have not been recounted, only assumptions and speculations.

Not one witness could provide factual, without a doubt, obvious to everyone evidence.

There is not such thing as a standard opf "beyond doubt"≥
Criminal cases have a standard of beyond reasonable doubt. Your alternative scenario stretched the bounds of reasonableness. Moreover, in an impeachment trial, is the standard of preponderance of the evidence not sufficient

As usual you have misquoted me to make may say something I never did say. I never said beyond reasonable doubt as I know it is not relevant in a civil case. Taking my whole sentence, in context, you will see, as others do, what my point was. Nice try.

There is no such thing as ," an authentic transcript of the actual call."

Sure there is. You may not like the transcript as it does not contain the statement Schiff claimed it did, but there is a transcript of the call between Trump and the president of Ukraine.

Trump hiding key witnesses and documents is hiding truth by definition.

Are you sure of this? What if the truth is there is no quid pro quo, no obstruction, no abuse of power, nothing that the Dems have been screaming about for the 2 1/2 years?

 

[Maximus1]

2 1/2 years?. Trump’s call was in July. Sorry I cannot keep up with his victim stories. Make it 5 years when nobody is looking.
If the witnesses are exculpatory they would testify.

 

[Theo520]

2 1/2 years?. Trump’s call was in July. Sorry I cannot keep up with his victim stories. Make it 5 years when nobody is looking.

Wow,​

you missed the whole Mueller investigation!?!?
It was supposed to deliver evidence for impeachment.

 

[dvdjs]

it has been supported.

A focus group.
Some polling date that is woefully out of date, as shown in forum posts - if you have been keeping up.

 

[Theo520]

A focus group.
Some polling date that is woefully out of date, as shown in forum posts - if you have been keeping up.

I noticed you proffered zilch to counter what I shared

Go ahead, keep deflecting and ignoring reality,
all thorough Trumps re-election.

Loading…

thehill.com

 

[Maximus1]

Mueller did what the GOP hired him to do

 

[Maximus1]

A transcript is a verbatim account taken down stenographically word by word. A deposition for example. Or a hearing transcript.
The administration denies the existence of a real " transcript". To this day. Instead notes are taken and the conversation is " recreated". In this one ommissions have been testified to. So no, it isn’t a real transcript. Especially when you are trying to parcel words. Trump’s own people had the ability to " MASSAGE" the words when he gave this document to the public.

 

[Maximus1]

It was supposed to tell us about Russian interference. Like everything I TRUMP WORLD, it became all about him.

 

[dvdjs]

I noticed you proffered zilch to counter what I shared

I pointed out that what you offered, being alternatively extremely limited or dated, provided zilch to support your claim.

And you provide n even older poll.

 

[Horton]

2 1/2 years?. Trump’s call was in July. Sorry I cannot keep up with his victim stories. Make it 5 years when nobody is looking.

On Tuesday during her speech at Politico’s “Women Rule Summit,” Pelosi finally admitted that Democrats have been working hard to impeach Trump for the past 22 months.
When asked about criticisms of “the speed” of this impeachment sham, Pelosi replied, “Speed? It’s been going on 22 months—two and a half years, actually.”

 

[Theo520]

I pointed out that what you offered, being alternatively extremely limited or dated, provided zilch to support your claim.

Yes, you proffered zilch, not even a logical argument to counter what I shared.
Your response was ‘deep as a teaspoon’

Keep wishing on a star

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[dvdjs]

Yes, you proffered zilch

In reality, I pointed our that your the focus data are too limited to support your claims, and that other data are dated; more recent data that indicate trends that run counter to your claims. I also noted that these recent data have been posted on the forum. That is enough to vitiate your claims. No interested in the cartoons.