• 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!

There are democrat facts, and there are actual facts. Mike Purpura offers the latter

MovingPictures said:
I'll only deal with the first two minutes of this fantasy.

1. He states that Trump never made a direct link between the aid and investigations, which is accurate, but misleading. Trump repeatedly asked in the phone call and through his diplomats that the Ukrainians make a public commitment to investigating Hunter Biden and the DNC. There is a phone transcript and the testimony of multiple witnesses who backed-up their recollection with a record as support. Trump also says "we do a lot for your country" and then begins pushing for his "favor", which reveals what his intentions were.

If Trump had pure intentions, why did he do this all in secret? Why did he sit on the WB report? Why didn't he tell the Congress of his intentions when first asked, before the WB compliant was filed? Because he knew the whole sequence of events looked from the outside as an illegal scheme - which is what his several people in the WH thought, too.

2. Sondland, Hill, Volker, Morrison, Kent, and Vindmann were all in direct contact with Trump. They gave insight into what they saw as his intentions, which is not "hearsay". Trump appointed them, you know.

Schiff points out the very incriminating call where Sondland asks Trump what he wanted from Ukraine and Trump gave "No quid pro quo!" without being accused of anything. That is not how normal people talk. That's how people who have a conscience of guilt, who are trying to create an alibi talk. It's the kind of thing prosecutors use to convict gangsters all the time.

Further, Mulvaney himself admitted publicly the aid was connected to the investigations - we all heard it.

3. Trump only released the aid because he knew his scheme was going to become public soon. Which only further implicates him, as why would he do that if he felt the hold was perfectly legal?

If you want to say these actions are not high crimes, then fine. Do what Democrats did in 1998 and admit the obvious misdeed and then argue that. Don't try to argue there's plausible deniability because there isn't.
Click to expand...

The Republicans are hanging their hopes on the notion that if they spew out enough crap, they can bury the truth until it becomes more tedious than picking fly poop out of ground pepper.
 
Helix said:
refer to the link.
Click to expand...

You mean the link that doesn't support your claim that Donald Trump publicly admitted that he extorted another country for an election interference bribe using congressionally mandated military aid?

You lied and that link you posted does nothing to change that fact.

A lie is a lie, and something you obviously are quite comfortable espousing to bolster your political beliefs. What's really tragic is the fact that so many others whole heartedly support your lying.
 
Grim17 said:
You mean the link that doesn't support your claim that Donald Trump publicly admitted that he extorted another country for an election interference bribe using congressionally mandated military aid?

You lied and that link you posted does nothing to change that fact.

A lie is a lie, and something you obviously are quite comfortable espousing to bolster your political beliefs. What's really tragic is the fact that so many others whole heartedly support your lying.
Click to expand...

false, and already addressed.
 
MovingPictures said:
You just keeping ignore and ignoring all the other evidence that speaks to Trump's intent.

The fact that after Zelinsky turned Trump down that the latter went and froze the aid, reveals Trump's intentions. You can spin it and spin it all you want, but that is a smoking gun of Trump's intent to use the aid as leverage, and no amount of blaming Schiff and trying to make this about him is going to change that.
Click to expand...

LMMFAO.... When did Zelenski turn down Trump? Could you post a link to that quote from him?

While you're at it, could you explain how a quid pro quo involving the military aid could have existed without Trump ever mentioning the military aid, or the Ukrainian president knowing the military aid was being held up until a month after he talked to Trump?

I suspect your only option here is to claim that every single one of the democrats star witnesses, along with the Ukrainian president and his top military advisor are all a bunch of liars who can't be believed.... well, unless of course they say something that fits your agenda, then they are the salt of the earth... Right?

lmao
 
Helix said:
false, and already addressed.
Click to expand...

True... You can't escape the lie you posted... Unless of course, you come up with a quote from Trump where he admitted to the things you claim... which we all know won't happen because no such quote exists.
 
Grim17 said:
True... You can't escape the lie you posted... Unless of course, you come up with a quote from Trump where he admitted to the things you claim... which we all know won't happen because no such quote exists.
Click to expand...

i already proved my point. if you are still confused, refer to previous posts.
 
Grim17 said:
LMMFAO.... When did Zelenski turn down Trump? Could you post a link to that quote from him?
Click to expand...
He didn't commit to doing it and Trump was not happy about it. Why do you insist on contesting even the most obvious things?

While you're at it, could you explain how a quid pro quo involving the military aid could have existed without Trump ever mentioning the military aid, or the Ukrainian president knowing the military aid was being held up until a month after he talked to Trump?
Click to expand...
Is there something wrong with you? I've explained it multiple time in this thread and in others. If you don't want to accept it then fine, but stop asking me to repeat myself every two posts. It's annoying and rude, and leads me to believe you're not really listening at all, and just want to be irritating by trying to bait me into re-arguing the same points.

Go read my last three replies.
 
Grim17 said:
When did not having an answer to a question, mean that speculation becomes fact?
Click to expand...

Democrats did have an answer, as the post you quoted pointed out. When did not having a reply become rebuttal?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The Republicans are hanging their hopes on the notion that if they spew out enough crap, they can bury the truth until it becomes more tedious than picking fly poop out of ground pepper.
Click to expand...

The truth continues to be that Ukraine received its funds and no investigation was required.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The truth continues to be that Ukraine received its funds and no investigation was required.
Click to expand...

Nope, the truth is Ukraine never received ALL of the funds, AND...the use of the Javelins is tightly restricted and they are not even allowed closer than a hundred miles from the front. So they're not even allowed to USE them against Russian aggression at all in the first place because Trump's terms for the deal has a lot of baked in protections for Putin's happiness.
In effect, Ukraine basically received the Javelins as almost a "symbolic" ornament...they HAVE them but they're instructed to keep them far back from the front.
 
Athanasius68 said:
The truth continues to be that Ukraine received its funds and no investigation was required.
Click to expand...

After Trump got caught. The truth is that the Trump Administration did not inform the Congress of the hold on the funds which it had an obligation to do. In all the other cases where the Trump Administration withheld funds authorized by the Congress they informed the Congress as is their obligation. Only in the case of this hold did the administration not do so. In other words, THEY COVERED IT UP and even enlisted the aid of agencies of government to continue to cover it up.
 
Typical right wing bull**** projection.

Yeah, facts, every witness called prove trump did what he is accused of. Facts, Trump and his associates own words show that. Facts, Trump blocked supeonas of people that if he was innocent would prove him innocent. Fact, Trump has offered absolutely no defense other than attack. Fact. Republicans have offered absolutly no defense other than to block witnesses and whine and attack

So as usual, right wingers can GFTS
 
Philbin droning endlessly as if he did not read the Cippolone letter which clearly states that the WH would not cooperate with the House inquiries regarding Ukraine. No cooperation means no cooperation. Philbin now claiming that the House could have negotiated Trump's unilateral and all encompassing claim of Executive Privilege rings hollow given Cippilone's statement of no cooperation which rules out compromise or negotiation. So keep droning Philbon.

Its like the Trump team actually wants us to forget what they did assert and allow them to fabricate something they did not assert.

"Executive Privilege, Executive Privelege". Philbin drones on. Trump did not assert Executive Privilege. All the Cippilone letter claimed was that they would not cooperate because it was a "Partisan Impeachment". Well the House has 435 members. So there will be one more Majority Member than the Minority has which makes the notion of Partisan Impeachment a mute, nonsensical argument.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
The Republicans are hanging their hopes on the notion that if they spew out enough crap, they can bury the truth until it becomes more tedious than picking fly poop out of ground pepper.
Click to expand...

They can bury the truth, in the empty heads of their scumbag, cult constituency
 
The Trump defense team, sponsored by Ambien......
 
Rogue Valley said:
Trump is damn lucky this trial isn't taking place in a civil/criminal courtroom where the jury wouldn't be stacked in his favor..
Click to expand...

It has to be. It has to be a jury of peers. Not 12 lunatic Democrats. If this was in a courtroom, Trump would have had his Attorneys present in all witnesses who gave their information behind closed doors. The Democrats are lucky they weren't in a civil/criminal courtroom because they'd all be disbarred for the things they are doing. They'd all be held in contempt of court with their lies and hearsay. In fact, since all the witnesses were testifying on hearsay and personal opinions, their parts would be thrown out. This trial would be over. Perhaps the Democrats in the House would be subject to malpractice for sure! Disbarred!
 
jnug said:
Philbin droning endlessly as if he did not read the Cippolone letter which clearly states that the WH would not cooperate with the House inquiries regarding Ukraine. No cooperation means no cooperation. Philbin now claiming that the House could have negotiated Trump's unilateral and all encompassing claim of Executive Privilege rings hollow given Cippilone's statement of no cooperation which rules out compromise or negotiation. So keep droning Philbon.

Its like the Trump team actually wants us to forget what they did assert and allow them to fabricate something they did not assert.

"Executive Privilege, Executive Privelege". Philbin drones on. Trump did not assert Executive Privilege. All the Cippilone letter claimed was that they would not cooperate because it was a "Partisan Impeachment". Well the House has 435 members. So there will be one more Majority Member than the Minority has which makes the notion of Partisan Impeachment a mute, nonsensical argument.
Click to expand...

It is partisan. The Democrats are all off their rockers! They seem to think they have more authority than the executive branch. Well, they don't. So, if Democrats are so mad, why don't they then subpeona who ever they want and go to a judge instead of making baseless claims. But, they didn't. They knew the President has every right to claim executive privilege. Therefore, no obstruction. There's no such thing as obstruction of congress. Get a life Democrats.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom