• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats’ impeachment report

Slyfox696 said:
...I'm reading the document put out by Republicans, where they claim Trump is so concerned by Ukrainian corruption he withheld Congressionally appropriated funds until they investigated the son of his political rival.

You should read...well, anything.


Wait, I remember you! You're the one who always runs away when given facts. So glad to see you again. Let's see if you'll answer the questions I posed to you or if you'll just run away again:

1) Was it ignorance or dishonesty that led you to posting lies about Sondland's testimony?
2) Is Trump a corrupt ruler who tried to extort and bribe a foreign government into investigating his political rivals or is Trump so incompetent as a leader that everyone working on a policy Trump claims is important to him all came to the same wrong conclusion about what he wanted?


Please answer those questions finally.
Click to expand...

I'm ignoring your idiotic questions that try to put someone into a false choice, you aren't smarter than that, so I can forgive you for thinking they have relevance,

But read the link you put down there, it CLEARLY SHOWS....(unlike what the Democrats have done) it SHOWS that Trump has had long distrust of Ukraine and foreign aid in GENERAL....but I don't expect you to believe that, it didn't come from CNN.

The biggest difference between the Republicans document and the Democratic hearings, is that the Democrats are telling you what was said, the Republicans are SHOWING you, what was said. I'd ask you just to read pages 32-36 but you won't, they don't support your point of view.
 
Not surprising to me, they know their base are scumbags that will believe any thing you tell them, regardless of how much BS it is. And then trhe other part are so greedy that who cares how scummy republicans are, how much damage is done, as long as they get their tax breaks
 
SLC said:
Republicans saw the same evidence that the Dems did. The Republicans have reached their opinion of that evidence. Nothing wrong with that.
Click to expand...

Bull ****ing ****. Opinoins based on fabrications, lies, and spin, there is most definitely something wrong with that. That's what people who have no facts say to try to pretend their unsubstantiated opinion is on the same level as those who base it on facts
 
Lmao. It blames Rudy.

Let's see that insurance policy, Rudy.

Let's see it.

Not that it will matter. The entire rotten edifice is laying in smouldering ruins. No FISA abuse. No FBI "spying". No Ukrainian meddling. Quid Pro Quo Confirmed at the direction of Trump, as noted in various testimony that the Manhattan Ghoul was operating at his directive.

Conservatives, this is what "checkmate" looks like. You guys can keep flipping out and tossing the table but the facts are right in your faces.

How the **** can you be so blind to this?
 
Nalu said:
Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats' impeachment report | US news | The Guardian

"The 123-page Republican report was prepared for Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Michael McCaul, the ranking members on the House intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees, respectively."

Trying to coordinate partisan talking points is expected. Coordinating them with dishonesty is unfortunate. The strangest thing to me, though, is how Republicans have decided to preempt news with fabricated descriptions of events. They're publishing a dissent before the opinion gets issued, so to speak. It worked well enough with Barr/Mueller, so it looks like they're going to keep running the same play.
Click to expand...

The "PLAY" you're referring to is distinctly Soviet, and Americans are utterly ill-equipped to deal with such phenomena.
We've now arrived in the age of the American "Vremya".

Vremya1972Title.JPG

"Don't pay attention to Western report of nuclear accident, authorities have everything under control in minor mishap."

 
Nalu said:
Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats' impeachment report | US news | The Guardian

"The 123-page Republican report was prepared for Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Michael McCaul, the ranking members on the House intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees, respectively."

Trying to coordinate partisan talking points is expected. Coordinating them with dishonesty is unfortunate. The strangest thing to me, though, is how Republicans have decided to preempt news with fabricated descriptions of events. They're publishing a dissent before the opinion gets issued, so to speak. It worked well enough with Barr/Mueller, so it looks like they're going to keep running the same play.
Click to expand...

YOu mean facts that you refuse to acknowledge which have been posted to you time and time again.
you see that is the problem with leftist. all they have is denial fallacies.
even when given all of the information and what is exactly said they still hand wave and deny.

The only partisan talking points are from leftist. Their own witnesses blew their up their accusations.
no one had any evidence of quid pro quo, bribery or extortion.

it was pretty obvious when they testified to it.
so why do you ignore facts?
 
Chomsky said:
It's disinformation to disrupt democracy. No other way to put it.
Click to expand...

since when are facts disinformation?
or is it only disinformation when they disagree with your pre-set made up mind?
 
Torus34 said:
[Disclaimer. I have not yet read the Republican's document.]

President of the United States of America Donald Trump faces at least three specific possibilities of wrongdoing in any future articles of impeachment. There is the 'un-indicted co-conspirator' reference in a court case that has seen the other party sentenced to jail, the 10 or so citations in Part 2 of the Mueller report and the possible misuse of office for personal gain with the government of Ukraine.

There is evidence for each of these. Much of it is already before the public.

The Republican document, I would hope, will provide reasoned discussion of the evidence in each area and show why it is not correct. In short, it will, ideally, be an appeal to reason based upon fact.
Click to expand...

what evidence? pretty much all of the people that testified said they had no evidence of any of those accusations.
 
Nalu said:
Republicans issue 123-page defense of Trump ahead of Democrats' impeachment report | US news | The Guardian

"The 123-page Republican report was prepared for Devin Nunes, Jim Jordan and Michael McCaul, the ranking members on the House intelligence, oversight and foreign affairs committees, respectively."

Trying to coordinate partisan talking points is expected. Coordinating them with dishonesty is unfortunate. The strangest thing to me, though, is how Republicans have decided to preempt news with fabricated descriptions of events. They're publishing a dissent before the opinion gets issued, so to speak. It worked well enough with Barr/Mueller, so it looks like they're going to keep running the same play.
Click to expand...

I wonder what font size and spacing they had to use to get to 123 pages, lol.
 
The AntiDonald said:
Everything in this report we already heard in the open hearings and all the media coverage since this all began. The GOP has no real defense of the facts. So they make stuff up and keep pushing conspiracy theories. Given their track record, no one needs to read the GOP report. They have nothing exculpatory. Attack the process, attack the witnesses. End of story. Trump got caught and is guilty as sin.
Click to expand...

the only conspiracy theorists are leftists and schiff.
no russia
no obstruction
no quid pro quo.

just leftist delusion.
 
ludin said:
no one had any evidence of quid pro quo, bribery or extortion.
Click to expand...

Trump released a 'transcript' of himself doing it. Mulvaney admitted on live TV they did it. Trump's bagman in Ukraine testified that they did it. A dozen witnesses saw them do it.

Everyone has the evidence.
 
ludin said:
the only conspiracy theorists are leftists and schiff.
no russia
no obstruction
no quid pro quo.

just leftist delusion.
Click to expand...

Man, saying anything about delusion while pointing it outward is insane.

Look, I get it; you want to keep "winning." You are so blind. All your narratives are in smoking ruins. The Republicans can't defend this so they're using SMERSH style Soviet propaganda, just complete insanity. The lie is so big you have to believe it.

At the end of the day you are wrong. FISA - in smoke. Ukraine meddling - in smoke. Aid wasn't witheld - in smoke. IG report will exonerate Trump and show he was spied on - in smoke. Durham will have some impossible hoops to jump through to make this masturbatory, fap conspiracy a real thing, and his credibility as a prosecutor is on the line. Unlike you lot, I don't expect him to sell his soul to AG Barr, the slobbering catholic theocrat, or Donald John Trump, the manchurian.

You guys have been led around by the nose and you're so blind to how you're being used and abused.

Seeds from a thousand others, drip down from within....
 
OrphanSlug said:
I have no issue with Republicans issuing a defense, but we should all be concerned over how they present "evidence" that are really just talking points.

Not much effort was made to directly combat the testimony of key witnesses, and in some respects Republicans dance around several false narratives that benefit Russia. Just suggesting this is all a plot by Democrats to nullify the 2016 election results seems more desperation than anything else.
Click to expand...

were you not watching the trial or only what you wanted to?
they were plenty of direct questions made to combat testimony.

taylor was specifically asked if he had evidence he said no.
he was asked if linkage was ever discussed in any of the meetings he was in he said no.
he was asked if he had any evidence of quid pro quo or anything else he said no.
Taylor never talked to the president and he was never on the phone call.

Volker and morrison admitted in open court that they had no evidence of quid pro quo, bribery or treason as some idiot leftists were throwing out there.
volker testified that there was nothing there that suggest quid pro quo as well.
Sondland said that he has no evidence of quid pro quo and that he simply assumed it. when he directly asked the president the president said i want nothing.
it took 30 seconds and two questions for the lady (who was fired before it all began) to admit that she had no evidence of wrong doing, quid pro quo or bribery.
vindman could not point to quid pro quo either. he had 0 evidence.

so it would be amazing if you could tell me exactly what they didn't ask when they did?
i have posted the questions and testimony 1000 times on this forum. including youtube videos of testimony of them admitting they had
no evidence.
 
Obscurity said:
Man, saying anything about delusion while pointing it outward is insane.

Look, I get it; you want to keep "winning." You are so blind. All your narratives are in smoking ruins. The Republicans can't defend this so they're using SMERSH style Soviet propaganda, just complete insanity. The lie is so big you have to believe it.

At the end of the day you are wrong. FISA - in smoke. Ukraine meddling - in smoke. Aid wasn't witheld - in smoke. IG report will exonerate Trump and show he was spied on - in smoke. Durham will have some impossible hoops to jump through to make this masturbatory, fap conspiracy a real thing, and his credibility as a prosecutor is on the line. Unlike you lot, I don't expect him to sell his soul to AG Barr, the slobbering catholic theocrat, or Donald John Trump, the manchurian.

You guys have been led around by the nose and you're so blind to how you're being used and abused.

Seeds from a thousand others, drip down from within....
Click to expand...

*yawn* facts don't care about your feelings.
 
Greenbeard said:
Trump released a 'transcript' of himself doing it. Mulvaney admitted on live TV they did it. Trump's bagman in Ukraine testified that they did it. A dozen witnesses saw them do it.

Everyone has the evidence.
Click to expand...

*yawn* debunked already.
have a nice day there was no testimony of anyone for 2 weeks that had evidence of quid pro quo or bribery.
in fact at least 3 or so of the witnesses were not even there or had been fired.

in fact all of the people that testified in fact testified that they had no evidence.
facts don't care about your feelings.

i have posted in this forum too many times to count so i am not doing it anymore.
you want to ignore facts that is your choice. we can simply dismiss your argument.

there was nothing in the transcript that was quid pro quo.
 
sjmay said:
I'm ignoring your idiotic questions
Click to expand...
:lamo

So you're running away. Again. Not surprised.

that try to put someone into a false choice
Click to expand...
They are not a false choice, they are the only possible explanations. You have yet to provide any valid alternatives.

So are you going to answer or run away?

But read the link you put down there, it CLEARLY SHOWS....(unlike what the Democrats have done) it SHOWS that Trump has had long distrust of Ukraine and foreign aid in GENERAL....but I don't expect you to believe that, it didn't come from CNN.
Click to expand...
There's no need to post lies, I literally quoted that...are you going to address what I said?

"C'mon, that is just absolutely laughable. If the President of the United States genuinely thought Ukraine was corrupt, why would he ask them to investigate a United States citizen? How unbelievably stupid is that logic and how unbelievably stupid does one have to be to actually believe that?"

Please address that. If Trump has a long distrust and a "deep-seated" distrust of Ukraine due to "pervasive corruption", why would the President of the United States want them to investigate a United States citizen?

Please answer that question. Or run away, which is what I suspect you will do.
 
ludin said:
*yawn* debunked already.
have a nice day there was no testimony of anyone for 2 weeks that had evidence of quid pro quo or bribery.
in fact at least 3 or so of the witnesses were not even there or had been fired.

in fact all of the people that testified in fact testified that they had no evidence.
facts don't care about your feelings.

i have posted in this forum too many times to count so i am not doing it anymore.
you want to ignore facts that is your choice. we can simply dismiss your argument.
Click to expand...





 
ludin said:
YOu mean facts that you refuse to acknowledge which have been posted to you time and time again.
you see that is the problem with leftist. all they have is denial fallacies.
even when given all of the information and what is exactly said they still hand wave and deny.

The only partisan talking points are from leftist. Their own witnesses blew their up their accusations.
no one had any evidence of quid pro quo, bribery or extortion.

it was pretty obvious when they testified to it.
so why do you ignore facts?
Click to expand...

Right. :roll:

Every single one of them testified that they were being given every indication from their superiors that the President was withholding aid from Ukraine in order to get a public announcement of investigations into his political opponents. And, the President and their superiors all refused to testify themselves or hand over documents and evidence they claim exonerates them. It doesn't get more obvious than that and if Republican congressmen what to conspire with this President to push false Russian narratives on the American people I say let them. When they're all run out of office next year they can be indicted and tried right along side him.
 
ludin said:
*yawn* facts don't care about your feelings.
Click to expand...

THAT'S your defense?

THAT is what you have left? To claim your leader's lies are "facts"?

Dude, WAKE UP. Open your eyes! You've been meddled with! You've been mislead and fed a lie and now you refuse to accept it. It's alright dude. It's alright to admit what they've done to you and to hold them accountable.

Holy. ****.

These people have the blood of a reptile. Do not listen to them any longer!
 
Ikari said:
I wonder what font size and spacing they had to use to get to 123 pages, lol.
Click to expand...

A lot of it is backed up with footnotes, references, etc.

Regardless of what you think about it, they did a damn good job of backing up that paper, more than the Democrats did in the hearing.

It nails it when it says Demorcrats are relying on how people felt, and are telling people how to feel, while Republicans are laying out the facts through quotes and testimony to back up their positions.
 
Slyfox696 said:
:lamo

So you're running away. Again. Not surprised.

They are not a false choice, they are the only possible explanations. You have yet to provide any valid alternatives.

So are you going to answer or run away?

There's no need to post lies, I literally quoted that...are you going to address what I said?

"C'mon, that is just absolutely laughable. If the President of the United States genuinely thought Ukraine was corrupt, why would he ask them to investigate a United States citizen? How unbelievably stupid is that logic and how unbelievably stupid does one have to be to actually believe that?"

Please address that. If Trump has a long distrust and a "deep-seated" distrust of Ukraine due to "pervasive corruption", why would the President of the United States want them to investigate a United States citizen?

Please answer that question. Or run away, which is what I suspect you will do.
Click to expand...

READ pages 32-36, it explains your questions bud, but again, you won't do it.
 
sjmay said:
A lot of it is backed up with footnotes, references, etc.

Regardless of what you think about it, they did a damn good job of backing up that paper, more than the Democrats did in the hearing.

It nails it when it says Demorcrats are relying on how people felt, and are telling people how to feel, while Republicans are laying out the facts through quotes and testimony to back up their positions.
Click to expand...

I mean, if the Trump administration hadn't been obstructing this entire time, allowed people with better knowledge to be called, and released documents subpoenaed by Congress, there might be more bite to the deflections.
 
sjmay said:
A lot of it is backed up with footnotes, references, etc.

Regardless of what you think about it, they did a damn good job of backing up that paper, more than the Democrats did in the hearing.

It nails it when it says Demorcrats are relying on how people felt, and are telling people how to feel, while Republicans are laying out the facts through quotes and testimony to back up their positions.
Click to expand...
Only if you're willing to believe and accept lies which, as a Trump defender, you clearly are.


sjmay said:
READ pages 32-36, it explains your questions bud, but again, you won't do it.
Click to expand...
I just read them. Nowhere does it answer my question.

So I'll ask again and watch you run away again:


There's no need to post lies, I literally quoted that...are you going to address what I said?

"C'mon, that is just absolutely laughable. If the President of the United States genuinely thought Ukraine was corrupt, why would he ask them to investigate a United States citizen? How unbelievably stupid is that logic and how unbelievably stupid does one have to be to actually believe that?"

Please address that. If Trump has a long distrust and a "deep-seated" distrust of Ukraine due to "pervasive corruption", why would the President of the United States want them to investigate a United States citizen?

Please answer that question. Or run away, which is what I suspect you will do.
 
Master Debator said:
Right. :roll:

Every single one of them testified that they were being given every indication from their superiors that the President was withholding aid from Ukraine in order to get a public announcement of investigations into his political opponents. And, the President and their superiors all refused to testify themselves or hand over documents and evidence they claim exonerates them. It doesn't get more obvious than that and if Republican congressmen what to conspire with this President to push false Russian narratives on the American people I say let them. When they're all run out of office next year they can be indicted and tried right along side him.
Click to expand...

The only people pushing false russian conspiracies are schiff and leftists.
that was proven in the mueller report.

Actually no one that testified provided any evidence to support in fact when they asked if they had any evidence they said no.
sondland specifically said that no one told him he just assumed. when he did asked he was told nothing.

and he was the only person that actually asked the president.

sorry assumptions is not evidence. speculation is not evidence.
 
Ikari said:
I mean, if the Trump administration hadn't been obstructing this entire time, allowed people with better knowledge to be called, and released documents subpoenaed by Congress, there might be more bite to the deflections.
Click to expand...

I dunno how much bite is needed when the is nothing there.....

I agree, I think you want to hear from Giuliani, Pompeo, Bolton, but, absent that, the Democrats STILL have to make their case on facts, and they simply haven't.

Democrats say Trump wasn't serious about corruption and Ukraine, but in pages 32-36, they SHOW he was, with witness testimony AND trump's words back in 2016....

Democrats say there was linkage between aid and investigations, but this report SHOWS that there wasn't, with witness testimony...

They didn't attack process, or witnesses, they refuted point by point the Democrats case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom