• 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!

Abuse of power, obstruction of congress

jamesbyoung said:
Your ignorance is based on your posting. Not, they are not 'synonymous'. You don't know the law or the statutes.
Click to expand...

I know the law and the statutes, you are dead wrong in your insistence of creating a new status as a US citizen under US jurisprudence. The ignorance is entirely yours. Quit while you are so far behind you won't ever catch up.

Please show me a statute anywhere that has a legal status of not innocent. Guilty must be proven, innocent is the default status until proven guilty. Stop the bull****.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Its in the transcript that he did discuss it, not that the aid was conditionary upon it, which was the main allegation that was never proven.
Click to expand...

the extortion was done in order to gain the bribe of the announcement of a Biden investigation, as they admitted. i find Tweety supporter custom realities boring, and i'm not going to spend a lot more time on yours.
 
Gop 2020
 
Helix said:
the extortion was done in order to gain the bribe of the announcement of a Biden investigation, as they admitted. i find Tweety supporter custom realities boring, and i'm not going to spend a lot more time on yours.
Click to expand...

As tiresome as I find you rewriting testimony and transcripts because orange man bad has taken over your thinking.
 
Helix said:
The impeached peach admitted it, as did his surrogates.
Click to expand...
He didnt nor anyone else admitted that he extorted anyone for the purpose of political benefit. When you make such claims with supporting it, you deystroy your own credability

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
OpportunityCost said:
As tiresome as I find you rewriting testimony and transcripts because orange man bad has taken over your thinking.
Click to expand...

your false reality account has been overdrawn. goodbye.
 
trouble13 said:
He didnt nor anyone else admitted that he extorted anyone for the purpose of political benefit. When you make such claims with supporting it, you deystroy your own credability

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

i "deystroy" false reality. read the thread.
 
trouble13 said:
He didnt nor anyone else admitted that he extorted anyone for the purpose of political benefit. When you make such claims with supporting it, you deystroy your own credability

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I bet you are eligible for an upgrade???
 
Integrityrespec said:
So this is the "crimes" upon which that democrats want to impeach and remove. Where is a "crime" under judicial statute in U.S. law?
Click to expand...

LMAO aaaaaand another instant failure and factual proof of another person monumentally uneducated about this topic
 
trouble13 said:
I am looking forward to Trump finally being afforded the opportunity to respond to the democrats accusations.
Imo any and all witnesses that he wants to offer as part of his defense should be allowed. I would not allow the Democrats any new witnesses outside of sny that can offer direct testimony to whatever defense Trump presents.
Democrats up to this point have been moving the goal posts with their accusations constantly changing. Now that the articles of impeachment have been sent to the Senate, that game needs to be put a stop to. If they allow new witnesses the democrats will continue to play the same game of making it like trying to nail slime to a wall. Let them howl about it being unfair all they want. They have slready made it abundandtly clear they have no intention of operating in good faith.
In my mind theres two big questions that need to be answered.
1. How each senator votes
2. How voters will react to it in November.
This trial is going to happen and everyone in congress will be on record. Theres no equivocating.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I would insist firstly on Schiff, then Michael Atkinson, Schiff's entire staff, the whistle blower, Vidman, Yovanovich and the attorney who vowed to impeach Trump with the help of CNN. That would be the start. If Schiff refused, the Republicans would start on HIS impeachment for obstruction of the Senate and abuse of power.
 
narrowroad said:
They didn't think America got the memo

had to waste more time and money on making sure all the dummies out there got t he memo...

even though they were getting it through corrupt, DNC-branch cnn anyway
Click to expand...
Thats the thing, the day of reckoning is here. This whole thing is going to be televised.
They are not gonna be able to make declarative statements of guilt without producing evidence to support the claim without people realizing it.
Even their progandist allies in the media are gonna have a tough time providing the democrats the kind of cover that they come to expect from the media.
When it comes to pliticsl maneuvering, I am rarely impressed by Republicans. This time however I think they did something clever that nrither the Democrats or the media saw coming. They are confining the media to a desiginated area and they will not have access to any of the Senators during the breaks. This is important because it prevents the two from the typical cordinated spin they engage in, while the proceedings are taking place.
If they fail to convince people that the impeachment is valid. Its a big problem for the party who yold them it was a grave national threat and for the media who has been supporting. People are not going to react well to feeling like they were being scammed.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Paradoxical said:
Yes,you are.
Click to expand...
LMAO Oh this gonna be so much fun!!! I love a post oozes butthurt like yours!!

Simply back up your statement with one fact that proves it true . . . . one . . thanks!


:popcorn2:
 
AGENT J said:
LMAO Oh this gonna be so much fun!!! I love a post oozes butthurt like yours!!

Simply back up your statement with one fact that proves it true . . . . one . . thanks!


:popcorn2:
Click to expand...

What? That you are monumentally uneducated on this topic? LMAO. It's like asking me to prove AOC is unqualified. It's self evident.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Any and all evidence regarding a quid pro quo and testimony was linked to a WH visit and the aid, all other testimony stating otherwise was the opinions of those testifying and not stated by the President at any point----all of them had to state such under oath. There is no custom reality about it, that's what they testified to.
Click to expand...

Trump himself connected the July 25th phone call on Biden to Ukraine's funding...

"... After days of insisting there was nothing inappropriate about his telephone call with Zelensky, President Trump, in two sets of remarks to reporters asking about his July 25 phone call with Zelensky, appears to confirm a connection between U.S. financial assistance for Ukraine and his pressure for the country's leaders to pursue the investigation he wants.

On Sept. 22, Trump acknowledges discussing Joe Biden with the Ukraine leader during their July 25 phone call. "The conversation I had was largely congratulatory, with largely corruption, all of the corruption taking place and largely the fact that we don't want our people like Vice President Biden and his son creating to the corruption already in Ukraine," Mr. Trump told reporters. Trump says, "Certainly I'd have every right to raise Biden with Ukraine President if there's corruption and we are paying lots of money to a country."

Trump has repeatedly referred to what he falsely claims the Bidens to have done as "corruption." "It's very important to talk about corruption," Trump tells reporters on Sept. 23. "If you don't talk about corruption, why would you give money to a country that you think is corrupt? It's very important that on occasion you speak to somebody about corruption."..."​

The very next day on September 24, Pelosi announced an impeachment inquiry into Trump's quid pro quo with Ukraine...and three House committees opened investigations.

All the testimony that you call opinions are consistent with Trump's own statements.
 
Last edited:
jamesbyoung said:
The GOP, however, will be beaten down badly in the federal and state elections.

The American voter is not going to put up with their anti-Americanism any more
Click to expand...
I love that you guys are still invested in telling people that. The problem with saying that is people are gonna want to know what evidence you have to support that accusation.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Paradoxical said:
What? That you are monumentally uneducated on this topic? LMAO. It's like asking me to prove AOC is unqualified. It's self evident.
Click to expand...

BOOM!!!!! and the dodge train takes off!!!! The ownage of your failed posts and lies begins!!!
LMAO I knew this would be fun!!

To further my entertainment and to destroy your lies so more ill ask you AGAIN

Please simply back up your statement with one fact that proves it true . . . . one . . thanks!







who wants to bet my question is dodged and run from again?
 
Helix said:
i "deystroy" false reality. read the thread.
Click to expand...
I dont need to go on a wild goose chase to find anything. Next week the house managers will present their case and if your claim is true it will be entered into evidence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
Paradoxical said:
I would insist firstly on Schiff, then Michael Atkinson, Schiff's entire staff, the whistle blower, Vidman, Yovanovich and the attorney who vowed to impeach Trump with the help of CNN. That would be the start. If Schiff refused, the Republicans would start on HIS impeachment for obstruction of the Senate and abuse of power.
Click to expand...
He could do that but i would not rule out letting the defense rest without offering any rebuttal if the democrats dont produce a sufficient case.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
trouble13 said:
I dont need to go on a wild goose chase to find anything. Next week the house managers will present their case and if your claim is true it will be entered into evidence.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

and then it will be ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom