Facts that Obliterate the Democrats’ Impeachment Show Trial

[artichoke]

Doesn't matter, the claim was proven true.

Wrong. Cherry-picked, third party conjecture about what other people might have said or thought is not proof. And yes, it absolutely matters that the "whistleblower" is a partisan activist who coordinated this umpteenth smear campaign ahead of time with the guy now pretending to investigate it.

So what? It's a private company, they can hire whoever they want.

Dishonest posturing. Obviously, paying the son of a politician truckloads of cash to do literally nothing as his father runs Ukrainian policy is illegally purchasing political influence, and a clear ethics violation, as even the Democrats' own witnesses all acknowledged. This is exactly what I am talking about. You hyperventilate over Trump jaywalking and say "so what?" to documented, provable, actual corruption and abuses of power.

Totally biased and dishonest, as usual.

Attachment 12647

This is besides the point, anyway. Even if Hunter did something illegal, it wouldn't change the fact that what Trump did was also illegal. This is just #whataboutism.

You being unable to comprehend the connection between Trump asking for an investigation into obvious, provable corruption and the person committing that obvious, provable corruption doesn't make the two things unrelated at all or turn any of this into whataboutism. It just means you can't follow and incredibly straightforward line of thought.



This is a YOU problem.

More #whataboutism. If Obama and Biden did something illegal, it does not negate Trump doing something illegal.

Wrong again. You arbitrarily calling it corruption for Trump to confront corruption in no way makes it a crime to ask for an investigation. And bringing up the fact that this phony unnamed crime you're inventing against Trump is to protect the ACTUAL crime he was attempting to investigate in no way constitutes whataboutism. Try looking up definitions of words before embarrassing yourself like this.

We have the transcript where Trump asks for a "favor" while withholding aide.

Aid was withheld for months to vet the new Ukrainian leader (who didn't even know it was happening), as required by law to avoid taxpayers funding corruption overseas. By your logic, anything that Trump asks for during that period MUST be a conspiracy to commit blackmail (otherwise known as normal foreign policy operations, for those snowflake drama queens suddenly fainting and shrieking over apparently seeing how political leaders negotiate for the first time). That's not you having evidence. That's you being a conspiracy theorist.

Attachment 12648

[artichoke]

Trump still asked a foreign government for dirt on a political opponent. That's using the presidency for personal gain.

Which isn't illegal and which Democrats only object to when someone other than a Democrat does it...hence the fraudulent nature of this umpteenth invented "scandal."

And yet he ONLY asked about "corruption" regarding the Bidens.

The Trump administration could only be investigating him behind the scenes if they were also only talking to him ABOUT that background investigation every time they spoke? Nice logic.

If someone robs you, but you're unaware you were robbed, a crime was still committed.

Apples and oranges. Blackmail and bribery can only exist as crimes if the victim is aware of it. Another genius comeback from Socrates here.

[Micawber]

unread. No facts can obliterate this at all. Trump is a crook, and you, I and everyone knows it based upon all the facts.

You are pissing in the wind and tilting windmills. This shit has been largely scripted. You don't need to lie
to justify acquitting Trump after we impeach him. We know you are going to, and we know you shouldn't.
It's a simple exercise of naked power and disregard for your duty to country.

We won't forget your treachery. Ever.

[artichoke]

Sure, but you have to do it legally. You can't just ignore congress' decisions and make a shady backdoor deal.

So Obama was committing a crime when he did it at least 8 separate times? How convenient that you only now somehow read the law to mean the opposite of what it means.

You also have to have a good reason. Withholding aide in return for dirt on a political opponent is not a good reason.

Vetting the new leader as required by law IS a good reason. The only person who actually withheld aid for corrupt reasons here is Biden...the one you naturally defend.

#whataboutism

Don't play the victim by pretending that Biden's provable, documented corruption is off-limits to investigate just because there is an election coming and people won't have to point it out. That's not whataboutism (again, look up definitions of words before embarrassing yourself like this). It's pointing out the flaws in your drama queen fake victimhood act. Try to comprehend it.

Try again, dishonest demagogue.

An attempted crime is still a crime. You're basically saying that if a guy gets caught robbing a bank, a crime wasn't committed, because he didn't leave the bank with the money.

Unless there's a plausible alternative explanation for why the money was released...like the legal requirement to verify that funds were not being released to corrupt Ukrainian officials...which was completed at that point. Should they have waited for a couple more months to release the funds to keep Democrat conspiracy theorists from hyperventilating in the streets over imaginary connections? Or would you then throw an equally hysterical pity party for Ukraine being denied aid?

Attachment 12652

This is another debunked conspiracy theory and more #whataboutism. Even if this was true, it wouldn't negate Trump's crime.

I refer you to the last time you pushed this conspiracy theory. And no, repeating the lie that what Trump did was a crime won't make it true. That's an ad nauseum fallacy. And it is a matter of record that Ukraine interfered, as even left-wing publications documented in extreme detail.

Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election — that’s a fact, not a conspiracy theory

Attachment 12653

This is probably another lie, but again, it doesn't matter. We already have all the evidence we need as well as a literal confession.

A confession of...unrelated events linked together only by coincidence and conspiracy theories, sure. And it is very revealing that you call the most common knowledge act of scam-artist dishonesty in this entire show trial being talked about on every network a "lie."

This is probably another lie, but again, it doesn't matter. We already have all the evidence we need as well as a literal confession.

A confession of...coinciding events linked together only by hysterical conspiracy theories, sure. And it is very revealing that you call the most common knowledge act of scam-artist dishonesty in this entire show trial being talked about on every network a "lie."

#whataboutism

Wrong again. Pointing out double standards is not whataboutism. Again, educate yourself before speaking.

Whistleblowers have the right to remain anonymous.

Are you ever NOT wrong? No, that is not what the law says at all. Partisan Biden operatives do not have any such right to instigate coordinated witch hunts like this without their victims having the fundamental constitutional right to confront their accusers. Provably false, as usual.

I know you're a Fascist, so I can't change your mind, but I hope some fence-sitters on the forum can see that Trumpcucks have no real defense here.

The signature of the crybully snowflake: everything I don't like is "literally Hitler."

Attachment 12654

And yes, with arguments this factually and logically flawed, you will convince no one.

[Earl]

So Obama was committing a crime when he did it at least 8 separate times? How convenient that you only now somehow read the law to mean the opposite of what it means.



Vetting the new leader as required by law IS a good reason. The only person who actually withheld aid for corrupt reasons here is Biden...the one you naturally defend.

Indeed.

[StoneByStone]

So Obama was committing a crime when he did it at least 8 separate times? How convenient that you only now somehow read the law to mean the opposite of what it means.

#whataboutism

Vetting the new leader as required by law IS a good reason. The only person who actually withheld aid for corrupt reasons here is Biden...the one you naturally defend.

Zelensky was already vetted, but that's besides the point. Trump wasn't telling him he needs to crack down on corruption, he was telling him to investigate two specific cases involving his main political opponent. If this isn't a Quid Pro Quo, then nothing is. And I'm not defending Biden, I don't like him either. I'm just being honest.

Don't play the victim by pretending that Biden's provable, documented corruption is off-limits to investigate just because there is an election coming and people won't have to point it out. That's not whataboutism (again, look up definitions of words before embarrassing yourself like this). It's pointing out the flaws in your drama queen fake victimhood act. Try to comprehend it.

#whataboutism
Even if Biden did do something wrong, that doesn't negate Trump's crime.

Unless there's a plausible alternative explanation for why the money was released...like the legal requirement to verify that funds were not being released to corrupt Ukrainian officials...which was completed at that point. Should they have waited for a couple more months to release the funds to keep Democrat conspiracy theorists from hyperventilating in the streets over imaginary connections? Or would you then throw an equally hysterical pity party for Ukraine being denied aid?

The funds were released because congress forced Trump to stop withholding them. Trump never gave a reason for withholding the money, obviously he couldn't admit he was using it for extortion, so it was just kind of a mystery why he was doing this. When congress pressed him to release it, Trump really had no choice.

I refer you to the last time you pushed this conspiracy theory. And no, repeating the lie that what Trump did was a crime won't make it true. That's an ad nauseum fallacy. And it is a matter of record that Ukraine interfered, as even left-wing publications documented in extreme detail.

Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election — that’s a fact, not a conspiracy theory

Which conspiracy theory did I push?
And Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election was already debunked. But even if they did, it still doesn't justify Trump bribing the Ukrainian government to get him dirt on a political opponent.

[StoneByStone]

Which isn't illegal and which Democrats only object to when someone other than a Democrat does it...hence the fraudulent nature of this umpteenth invented "scandal."

Actually, using the presidency for personal gain is illegal.

The Trump administration could only be investigating him behind the scenes if they were also only talking to him ABOUT that background investigation every time they spoke? Nice logic.

Could you put this into English.

Apples and oranges. Blackmail and bribery can only exist as crimes if the victim is aware of it. Another genius comeback from Socrates here.

Zelensky could have not known why the money was being withheld and that wouldn't change the reason it was being withheld.

But really, it's obvious that Zelensky was lying when he said there was no pressure. He was set to go on CNN and announce an investigation of the Bidens. It was only when congress forced Trump to release the aide that Zelensky cancelled his plans. He knew the aide was conditioned on the investigation, he just couldn't admit it on TV because it would make him look weak.

[artichoke]

unread.

Attachment 12655

Crybully pouting is always a compelling counterpoint.

No facts can obliterate this at all. Trump is a crook, and you, I and everyone knows it based upon all the facts.

So pout, then throw a denial tantrum.

Attachment 12656

You are pissing in the wind and tilting windmills.

Um, sure.

This shit has been largely scripted.

The people who met with the whistleblower and coordinated all of this before the complaint was even filed are accusing ANYONE ELSE of following a script?

You don't need to lie to justify acquitting Trump after we impeach him.

Agreed. The facts make the case for that all by themselves.

We know you are going to,

Well yeah, as any sane person would.

It's a simple exercise of naked power and disregard for your duty to country.

Hey look, a lecture on patriotic duty and moral responsibility from the Constitution-shredding lynch mob demagogues who support border anarchy, infanticide, sex changes for children, Antifa, death threats for Covington Catholics, fake hate crimes, vicious slander campaigns, partisan witch hunts, and treasonous coup attempts.

Attachment 12657

We won't forget your treachery. Ever.

Say the Constitution-shredding lynch mob demagogues who support border anarchy, infanticide, sex changes for children, Antifa, death threats for Covington Catholics, fake hate crimes, vicious slander campaigns, partisan witch hunts, and treasonous coup attempts.



Treachery is your defining trait. And I wouldn't expect you to be able to tell the difference between fighting 21st Century McCarthyism and treachery. That would require an IQ over 40.

[artichoke]

#whataboutism

Thinking adult: Points out the suddenly new standard being invented out of thin air just for Trump.

Democrat: Accuses thinking adult of trying to change the subject.

Attachment 12663

Zelensky was already vetted, but that's besides the point.

Wrong again. Zelensky had just taken power. And by law, foreign aid had to be suspended until he could be vetted. And no, being required by law to suspend foreign aid is not "beside the point." It IS the point. Next lie, please.

Trump wasn't telling him he needs to crack down on corruption, he was telling him to investigate two specific cases involving his main political opponent.

In this one conversation, no. Does every single conversation have to be solely about vetting for corruption in order for that vetting to be taking place? No. Stupid and obvious fallacy.

Try again.

If this isn't a Quid Pro Quo, then nothing is. And I'm not defending Biden, I don't like him either. I'm just being honest.

Quid pro quo is not unusual or controversial (hence the 8 times Obama did it with zero scandal), and neither is asking foreign governments for political favors (see Clinton asking Tony Blair for help in 2000), so who cares? And yes, helping legitimize an obviously fraudulent diversionary witch hunt that takes everyone's eyes off of the actual crime and corruption here IS defending Biden. Since we are being so "honest" here.

#whataboutism

Thinking adult: Points out the suddenly new standard being invented out of thin air just for Trump.

Democrat: Accuses thinking adult of trying to change the subject.

Attachment 12664

Even if Biden did do something wrong, that doesn't negate Trump's crime.

Correct. What makes Trump's actions non-criminal is the fact that they violate no laws. Biden's crimes are only relevant here because they are the REASON Trump was asking in the first place.

Comprehending it yet?

The funds were released because congress forced Trump to stop withholding them.

Just saying random things based on no evidence doesn't make them true. The facts show that Trump released them upon the new leader's vetting being completed.

Trump never gave a reason for withholding the money,

Wrong again. You just get your news from sources that had already assigned him a motive instead of considering the reasons he gave. Next lie, please.

obviously he couldn't admit he was using it for extortion,

Or he just gave different reasons because his reasons...were different from extortion.

And Ukraine interfering in the 2016 election was already debunked. But even if they did, it still doesn't justify Trump bribing the Ukrainian government to get him dirt on a political opponent.

Again, just saying things that contradict all the evidence doesn't make them true.

As Russia collusion fades, Ukrainian plot to help Clinton emerges

Actually, using the presidency for personal gain is illegal.

So you admit that what Biden did that made all of this necessary was a crime? Good.

Could you put this into English.

Your argument is that the Trump administration could only be investigating his background if that were also the only thing Trump brought up when talking to him. Obviously stupid on its face, as usual.

Zelensky could have not known why the money was being withheld and that wouldn't change the reason it was being withheld.

He didn't even know THAT the money was being withheld. That's the critical missing element of the non-crime you witch hunting conspiracy theorists are hyperventilating over.



Attachment 12660

But really, it's obvious that Zelensky was lying when he said there was no pressure.

So now THAT'S a conspiracy as well.

Attachment 12659

He was set to go on CNN and announce an investigation of the Bidens. It was only when congress forced Trump to release the aide that Zelensky cancelled his plans.

According to third and fourth party conjecture and hearsay by provably anti-Trump partisans, sure. The SANE PERSON'S version of this is that the funds were released because the background investigation into the new Ukrainian leader was complete.

Try again, dishonest demagogue.

Attachment 12661

[artichoke]

This is yet another case of Democrats being so consumed with psychotic hate and vitriol that they become blinded to basic facts, evidence, and logic. And while they faint, shriek, and convulse over every shadow that moves being some kind of Russian conspiracy or evil Disney villain plot, there stands President Trump pouring gasoline on the fire, watching them hyperventilate and misfire even more irrationally.

Attachment 12665

[PostmodernProphet]

Doesn't matter, the claim was proven true.

nothing so far......got any witnesses who heard anything?.....

[Nordberg]

-The “whistle-blower” is an ultra-partisan Democrat “resistance” activist who worked for Biden and who was meeting Adam Schiff before the complaint was ever even filed.

-The notoriously corrupt Ukrainian company Burisma hired Biden’s criminal son despite him having zero qualifications or expertise and being unable to speak the language, paying him $50k per month to do nothing while his father oversaw U.S. policy on Ukraine…while pressure and investigations against the company were mounting. It was a clear and unmistakable attempt to secure political protection from prosecution.

-Instead of investigating Biden’s actual, provable corruption or the Obama administration that blackmailed Ukraine into dropping its investigation into it, Democrats are investigating President Trump for wanting an investigation. Confronting corruption is corruption, we are to believe.

-The entirety of the left’s basis for this show trial is third party hearsay and conjecture. There is literally no actual evidence.

-The transcript shows zero connection between investigating Biden’s crimes and the military aid President Trump was delaying.

-There is a plausible alternative explanation to the left’s conspiracy theory...President Trump withheld funding for the reason he stated: to investigate Ukraine’s new leader and determine if he was as corrupt as the rest of the government before releasing funds, as required by law. When Zelensky was cleared, President Trump released the funding.

-President Zelensky confirmed that there was no pressure on the call, no quid pro quo, and that he didn’t even know about the delay during that conversation.

-There is nothing unusual or improper about presidents putting conditions on foreign aid (Obama did it at least 8 times) or seeking political assistance from foreign governments (see Bill Clinton asking Tony Blair to intervene in 2000).

-Biden doesn’t get to play the victim for people wanting to investigate him just because he happens to be running against the current president as his crimes are being dragged into the spotlight.

-The investigation never even happened, and the military aid, which contained devastating weaponry and was vastly superior to the blankets Obama provided, still flowed to Ukraine.

-Ukrainians tried to interfere in the 2016 election, which warrants investigation...even if Democrats who pretend to be so offended about “foreign influence” in our elections refuse to let it be investigated.

-Schiff was already caught reading a fake transcript of the phone call into the Congressional record to falsely portray President Trump as guilty.

-Democrats pretend to be fighting “foreign influence” and threats to “our democracy”…after colluding with a foreign spy to manufacture partisan propaganda, to lie to a federal judge about it being legitimate foreign intelligence, and to illegally spy on Trump to rig the 2016 election.

-Democrats have rigged this entire show trial with unprecedented abuses such as denying basic constitutional rights (the right to confront one's accuser, to call one's own witnesses, etc.), coaching witnesses, denying transparency to the American people at every turn, etc., all to protect the imaginary right of the "whistle-blower" to remain anonymous while deliberately staging a political witch hunt.

Attachment 12611

You cannot believe that shit.

[artichoke]

nothing so far......got any witnesses who heard anything?.....

You just have to be able to translate liberal to English. "Proof" is liberal-speak for "a partisan Democrat hack heard someone told someone else something, therefore Trump must be literally Hitler."

Attachment 12666

[artichoke]

You cannot believe that shit.

I realize that Democrats have a genetic predisposition toward resisting facts and logic, but for the rest of us, it's actually quite easy to believe them.

[artichoke]

The fallacy Democrats are operating on here is this:

Doing normal foreign policy business is suddenly scandalous because President Trump is doing it...and since doing normal foreign policy business suddenly makes President Trump a bad person, that naturally means he can and should be impeached.

The problem with this, of course, is that you don't get to suddenly invent new standards just for one person you don't like (which only a ridiculous child would even need explained to them) and being a "bad person" isn't impeachable. There needs to be a crime. In fact, after everything Obama, Hillary, and Biden have gotten away with, apparently even straight-up high crimes and treason cannot be prosecuted.

Remove head from rectum, THEN make legal assertions, absurd emotional hysterics.