• 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!

Adam Schiff Destroys the Republican Argument Against Impeachment

NeverTrump

NeverTrump

Exposing GOP since 2015
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 21, 2013
Messages
25,357
Reaction score
11,557
Location
Post-Trump America
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Despite hitting the nail on the head here, at least 1/5 people in our country will think he’s lying or just making things up.

“[The Republicans'] defense is, ‘It’s all hearsay…Because we’re not in the room, it’s all hearsay.’ …Well if that were true, you could never present any evidence in court unless the jury was also in the Ward Room. That’s absurd. The day after [Mueller testified], Donald Trump is back on the phone, asking another nation to involve itself in another US election. That says to me, this president believes he is above the law—beyond accountability. And in my view, there is nothing more dangerous."
Click to expand...

Adam Schiff Destroys the Republican Argument Against Impeachment
 
NeverTrump said:
Despite hitting the nail on the head here, at least 1/5 people in our country will think he’s lying or just making things up.



Adam Schiff Destroys the Republican Argument Against Impeachment
Click to expand...

Ukraine was already involved in a US election. Trump didn't ask Zelensky to get involved in another one. He asked him to help investigate the previous one.

If you think this is Schiffty destroying the defense (that is defense...not Republican) argument, then you are giving too much credit to Schiffty's lies and misrepresentations.
 
Mycroft said:
Ukraine was already involved in a US election. Trump didn't ask Zelensky to get involved in another one. He asked him to help investigate the previous one.
Click to expand...

This is completely wrong. He was asking Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden. Biden was not running in 2016. Trump also believed that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election, so why would he ask Ukraine to investigate itself? The Stupid ahhh. It burns
 
NeverTrump said:
This is completely wrong. He was asking Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden. Biden was not running in 2016. Trump also believed that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election, so why would he ask Ukraine to investigate itself? The Stupid ahhh. It burns
Click to expand...

No he didnt. He asked Zelensky to investigate why Biden’s crack addicted degenerate pervert of a son somehow got a 50K a month gig.

We all know why that is though, it rhymes with influence peddling
 
In an oblique but nonetheless intentional way, didn't Adam Schiff suggest Trump was at fault for the deaths of tens of thousands of Ukrainians yesterday?
He might have also said there were orange stains on the corpses. Or maybe it was Jerry Nadler who said that.

Anyway, back on point, I'd wager that, yeah, the worksite murder that was reported yesterday was Trump's fault too.
 
EMNofSeattle said:
No he didnt. He asked Zelensky to investigate why Biden’s crack addicted degenerate pervert of a son somehow got a 50K a month gig.

We all know why that is though, it rhymes with influence peddling
Click to expand...

Ukraine is free to hire who they want. The President is not free to block aid to a country based on that country's hiring of family relatives of political rivals. Should we investigate Trump for influence peddling, isn't Trump Jr running the business despite making stump speeches on Fox News?
 
NeverTrump said:
This is completely wrong. He was asking Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden. Biden was not running in 2016. Trump also believed that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election, so why would he ask Ukraine to investigate itself? The Stupid ahhh. It burns
Click to expand...

LOL!!

That "getting dirt" thing.

I know it's a waste of time for me to ask you...perhaps the defense can ask Schiffty when he's called to testify...but when did Trump ask Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden? It certainly wasn't in the phone call(s). None of the witnesses testified hearing Trump say that.

I think the House Dems have made a serious mistake by hanging their entire collection of nonsense on a contention that they cannot support with any facts whatsoever.
 
Last edited:
NeverTrump said:
This is completely wrong. He was asking Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden. Biden was not running in 2016. Trump also believed that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election, so why would he ask Ukraine to investigate itself? The Stupid ahhh. It burns
Click to expand...

Then don't be stupid.
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

That "getting dirt" thing.

I know it's a waste of time for me to ask you...perhaps the defense can ask Schiffty when he's called to testify...but when did Trump ask Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden? It certainly wasn't in the phone call(s). None of the witnesses testified hearing Trump say that.
Click to expand...

We have text messages...

On the morning of the call, in an exchange with a key adviser to the Ukrainian President, then-US Special Envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker made clear that it was important to the White House that Zelensky convince Trump that an investigation into the 2016 election would happen.
"Heard from the White House -- assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate/'get to the bottom of what happened' in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington," Volker said via text to the Ukrainian adviser on the morning of July 25.
Click to expand...

Damning text messages detail Trump pressure on Ukraine
 
Mycroft said:
LOL!!

That "getting dirt" thing.

I know it's a waste of time for me to ask you...perhaps the defense can ask Schiffty when he's called to testify...but when did Trump ask Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden? It certainly wasn't in the phone call(s). None of the witnesses testified hearing Trump say that.

I think the House Dems have made a serious mistake by hanging their entire collection of nonsense on a contention that they cannot support with any facts whatsoever.
Click to expand...

schiff as carnak.jpg
 
NeverTrump said:
Despite hitting the nail on the head here, at least 1/5 people in our country will think he’s lying or just making things up.



Adam Schiff Destroys the Republican Argument Against Impeachment
Click to expand...

Schiff's statement right there shows just how much of a dumbass he is.

Juries hear direct evidence. They do not hear hearsay or speculation.
why? because judges do not allow that submitted as evidence at a trial.

No where did trump ask another nation to involve itself in another US election.
this is why schiff is a dumass and a liar.

but let the leftist lemmings go over the cliff with him.
they have already done it 2 times before.
 
NeverTrump said:
This is completely wrong. He was asking Zelensky/Ukraine to get involved with getting dirt on Biden. Biden was not running in 2016. Trump also believed that Ukraine hacked the 2016 election, so why would he ask Ukraine to investigate itself? The Stupid ahhh. It burns
Click to expand...


So?

If there is dirt on Biden, why do you want to sweep it under the rug? Shouldn't the American people know if a candidate is corrupt?

And, if there is no dirt on Biden, he would have no reason to worry, would he?
 
Carleen said:
Just wanted to point out that yesterday in Davos, Trump helped prove his obstruction. He stated when asked a question about the impeachment trial, “we have the material, they don’t”. Foot in mouth once again.
Click to expand...

What material was he referring to?
 
bullseyelqcs said:
Yep.....and that red octagonal sign with the white border on it with no other words doesnt imply STOP either......
Click to expand...

That red octagonal sign with the white border "says" stop.
See?
OP.rq8XDvcJVAyIMg474C474


On the other hand ... if you see things like this
OIP.veoK6cP7LKyjj1anL7oCygHaH6
you don't really have to shop.
 
bubbabgone said:
That red octagonal sign with the white border "says" stop.
See?
OP.rq8XDvcJVAyIMg474C474


On the other hand ... if you see things like this
OIP.veoK6cP7LKyjj1anL7oCygHaH6
you don't really have to shop.
Click to expand...

My point was that if you saw that sign with absolutely no words on it, you would have a damned good idea what it was supposed to mean anyway.....especially if it was at an intersection.

Its called context.
 
bullseyelqcs said:
My point was that if you saw that sign with absolutely no words on it, you would have a damned good idea what it was supposed to mean anyway.....especially if it was at an intersection.

Its called context.
Click to expand...

And my example showed your "damned good idea" would be wrong.
But you're right, for a real life situation with real words spoken it would be best to examine the context.
And in the case of the phone conversation the context and the words indicate corruption was the topic ... not the 2020 election.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom