If the Senate allows a fair trial...

[Ross Dolan]

So whine like a bitch it is.

People having discussions with Trump supporters do not whine. They laugh...which is what I am doing.

If your going to cite "the testimony" as your position, you should know what's in it, first. Hope you learned your lesson.

Terrible try. I know what the testimony was...strong enough for the House to impeach Trump. And more than strong enough for anyone with a functioning brain to realize that Trump attempted to extort Zelensky.

He failed...as he usually does.

As for you...the problem IS a lack of character and moral fiber.

Understandable...you are a Trump Supporter. (Sorta like an athletic supporter, only not as clean.)

 

[Earl]

If the testimony was strong enough to impeach, why were the Articles not sent to the Senate?

There is no impeachment until they are received in the Senate.

Nervous Nancy has messed in her mess gear.

If she sends them, the president will be exonerated.

If she doesn’t send them,there is no impeachment.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course I am telling the truth.

That is what's triggering you.

Lying to yourself now, eh? It is YOU that is triggered. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

No, Dog...and you know it.

But let that nut-case speak for you.

He's a gas!

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. It is YOU that is triggered.

 

[Into the Night]

It was far from a perfect phone call. The "fucking moron" as Rex Tillerson described him, is unable to do anything perfect.

In any case, earlier you wrote:



To which I replied,




I still defy you to do it.

You can't...and apparently you do not have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge you were wrong. Character is important, Dog. Develop some right here. Or...continue to support a person with none at all, like Trump.

Just insults and no argument. YALIFNAP

 

[Into the Night]

By the way...WHERE did I say that "an obvious threat was present in the phone call?"

Huh?

Going to deny your own argument now? Which is it, dude? You are still locked in your paradox. You are still irrational.

 

[Into the Night]

You are not only NOT QUOTING me verbatim...you are not quoting me accurately.

And Vindman was not the only person testifying.

C'mon. Show some character.

If it were Moi...I would simply say, "I was wrong...you were right. I apologize."

You don't even have to write it out...you can cut and paste it.

Which is it dude?

 

[Into the Night]

You did not paraphrase me in any reasonable way.

Quote me.



I am not. I am asking you two things.

One...include the totality of the testimony...which is the only thing that makes sense. To me...the totality of the testimony indicates that Trump attempted to shake Zelensky down...to extort him.

Two...to acknowledge that you were wrong when you asserted that I had claimed that an obvious threat was made in the phone call.

Care to do either of those things?

Which is it, dude? You are still being irrational. You MUST clear your paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox and remain rational.

 

[Into the Night]

It is becoming clear you are trying to bullshit your way thru this thread without really knowing the testimony. You should always factchcek those twitter memes you like to parrot, Frank. That way you won't get burned like you did on this thread.

I did include the totality. It is you that wants to exclude V's testimony, not me. Vindman's and Sondland's testimony are the only two really important ones. And you disagree with Vindman.

He's trying to bullshit his way out of paradox too, by causing more paradoxes, no less!

He now has a 2nd paradox:

1) Trump extorted the Ukraine in a phone call.
2) Trump did not extort the Ukraine in a phone call.

1) Trump is a man.
2) Trump is not a man.


It's hilarious watching you play with him.

 

[Ross Dolan]

He's trying to bullshit his way out of paradox too, by causing more paradoxes, no less!

He now has a 2nd paradox:

1) Trump extorted the Ukraine in a phone call.
2) Trump did not extort the Ukraine in a phone call.

1) Trump is a man.
2) Trump is not a man.


It's hilarious watching you play with him.

You poor little trigger Trump supporter.

The hilarious thing in this thread is watching you playing with yourself.

Hey...better than the sandbox, right?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just insults and no argument. YALIFNAP

You better watch out or else will accuse you of nipping at his heals and post that picture of him, in a dress, with his small dog.

 

[Port Tack]

Nope. The articles of impeachment have to delivered to the Senate. Until they are, Trump has not been impeached.

What a fucking stupid comment.

 

[PoliTalker]

Holiday Cheer Flash,

Partisans are always overly optimistic about their chances of success (elections, impeachments, etc.).

There is no way 2/3 of the Senators are going to vote to convict no matter what Mulvaney and Bolton say.

Similar things were said about Nixon...

 

[PoliTalker]

Holiday Cheer Anatta,

not a crime. Obstruction of Congress doesn't even exist! there is "obstruction of justice"-
but Congress has to go to court first for that to be applicable - they didn't so it doesn't

It is a violation of the Constitution. Thus, he broke his oath. That may not be defined as a specific crime, so it falls under the generalized 'High Crimes' description, which is basically anything the House says it is.

 

[Port Tack]

Stretching your argument a bit far, don't you think?

Only a dumbfuck brownshirt would not get it.

 

[dukkha]

It is a violation of the Constitution. Thus, he broke his oath.

vague assertions are not impeachable.
The Article are written as charges/ the impeachment text of the Constitution does not allow for Abuse of Power
-only crimes

 

[PoliTalker]

Holiday Cheer dukkha,

vague assertions are not impeachable.
The Article are written as charges/ the impeachment text of the Constitution does not allow for Abuse of Power
-only crimes

Hang onto that. It can be shouted out in anguish as the President is impeached again. But it will do no good as the People's House votes.

 

[dukkha]

Holiday Cheer Anatta,



It is a violation of the Constitution. Thus, he broke his oath. That may not be defined as a specific crime, so it falls under the generalized 'High Crimes' description, which is basically anything the House says it is.

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 

[Micawber]

If the Senate conducts a fair and through trial with witnesses such as mulvaney, and Bolton... Trump will be removed.

No he won't. If they conduct a scrupulously thorough and seeking inquiry and all facts are laid bare with confessions of all percipient witnesses
attributing high crime and misdemeanors to Trump, they will still acquit him on a party line vote. Then Trump will be defeated in the biggest landslide
in the history of politics and the Senate will be blue, the house will be blue and white house will be Dem too.

 

[dukkha]

Holiday Cheer dukkha,



Hang onto that. It can be shouted out in anguish as the President is impeached again. But it will do no good as the People's House votes.

lol..another impeachment would make the Dems look like a laughingstock, because it STILL won't be a crime