Robot roll call Impeachment

[Into the Night]

Your stupid is unfixable, LSMFT.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

[Into the Night]

I opened the thread before signing in and saw this ignorant post, and thought it deserved my attention to school people on your side
who are not versed in law.

You misapprehend "evidence" definitionally to such an extent it appears you believe the only real evidence is what amounts to a confession
of the accused in the form of a statement that also defines the crime.

Here is what real evidence is: any fact that tends in reason to make another fact (a fact that is of consequence to determination of the action) (see element) more or less probable.

That's it^ So ANYTHING that fits that def. is REAL evidence. Now I know you drones are defending your queen bee under attack, so your would not admit it was raining if we were standing in it, but

if proving it had rained in the morning were the relevant to an offense, REAL EVIDENCE of it, and by that I mean admissible evidence of it would include ALL the following:

it was cloudy that day,
there are umbrellas laying around on front porches,
some people are still wearing rain coats
there are puddles of water,
the almanac recorded that it had rained,
25 people said it rained
farmer brown is wear golashas
your goat is muddy
it rained again that same day
someone told me that someone told them they were in the rain that morning


ALL OF IT. Each these is REAL evidence. And the cumulative value of all the uncontroverted witnesses testimony over weeks was damning and
in a REAL lawsuit would guaranfuckingT a verdict or judgment in the plaintiff's or people's favor.

Here we had a dozen witnesses testify and documentary REAL evidence and you offered zero.

You were doing pretty good right up to this last statement.

The testimony of a witness is not real evidence. People lie. The accusations made by another is not evidence. People lie. Evidence is not a proof. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. No observation is a proof. This is why magic shows are entertaining and how movie theaters and illusions work.

False equivalence fallacy. Attempt to force negative proof fallacy. Four term argument fallacy.

We have this thing in law, you may have heard of it:
Innocent until proven guilty.

[Frank Apisa]

If I change it to ‘persuasive evidence’ do you promise to get all pompous and post another screed lol?

There is a mountain of evidence...and almost all of it is persuasive....except to people who are unwilling to even acknowledge it is evidence.

If all this stuff had been done by former President Obama rather than Trump...people like you would have no trouble seeing it as persuasive evidence that Trump attempted to extort President Zelensky.

I can only hope that some day you realize what a horrible mistake you are making in defending Trump and his nonsense...

...and are still free enough to be able to acknowledge that you were wrong.

Unfortunately, you may never realize how wrong you are without first losing that right.

[Callinectes]

Now it is officially in documented history that the Democrat party did the due diligence for the Democrat party as the Democrat party put the official seal on their crime syndicate which confirms that they are no longer a legit party and instead the party of biden and his traitors.

FTFY

[Darth Omar]

There is a mountain of evidence...and almost all of it is persuasive....except to people who are unwilling to even acknowledge it is evidence.

If all this stuff had been done by former President Obama rather than Trump...people like you would have no trouble seeing it as persuasive evidence that Trump attempted to extort President Zelensky.

I can only hope that some day you realize what a horrible mistake you are making in defending Trump and his nonsense...

...and are still free enough to be able to acknowledge that you were wrong.

Unfortunately, you may never realize how wrong you are without first losing that right.

Speaking of evidence, the proof is in the pudding.

Pelosi will likely not hold her caucus together on a vote. What does that *evidence* have to say about the democrats evidence?

Or should I say, lack of?

[Frank Apisa]

Speaking of evidence, the proof is in the pudding.

Pelosi will likely not hold her caucus together on a vote. What does that *evidence* have to say about the democrats evidence?

Or should I say, lack of?

Doesn't say a thing about it.

It says that Pelosi is telling her caucus to vote the way they want...which means they can take into account how the vote will impact them in the next election.

The Republicans are doing the same. The Republicans have a gun held to their heads...and are doing what their Dear Leader demands.

[Darth Omar]

Doesn't say a thing about it.

It says that Pelosi is telling her caucus to vote the way they want...which means they can take into account how the vote will impact them in the next election.

The Republicans are doing the same. The Republicans have a gun held to their heads...and are doing what their Dear Leader demands.

Well, if some democrats are skittish doesn’t that mean a significant number of voters aren’t buying what democrats are selling?

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

some utterances are just the only thing you can publicly say.

[Frank Apisa]

Well, if some democrats are skittish doesn’t that mean a significant number of voters aren’t buying what democrats are selling?

No...it means that some Democrats have managed to take over Red districts...and don't want to lose them.

But...a significant number of voters ARE NOT buying what the Democrats are doing. They are the hard-core Trump supporters who would probably not be bothered if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue...or tortured puppies on the White House lawn.

So you are correct that a significant number of voters are not agreeing with the Democrats...

...but the "skittishness" is not, in my opinion, occasioned by that.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

No...it means that some Democrats have managed to take over Red districts...and don't want to lose them.

But...a significant number of voters ARE NOT buying what the Democrats are doing. They are the hard-core Trump supporters who would probably not be bothered if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue...or tortured puppies on the White House lawn.

So you are correct that a significant number of voters are not agreeing with the Democrats...

...but the "skittishness" is not, in my opinion, occasioned by that.

or some dems are not globalist lying asshats.

[Darth Omar]

No...it means that some Democrats have managed to take over Red districts...and don't want to lose them.

But...a significant number of voters ARE NOT buying what the Democrats are doing. They are the hard-core Trump supporters who would probably not be bothered if Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue...or tortured puppies on the White House lawn.

So you are correct that a significant number of voters are not agreeing with the Democrats...

...but the "skittishness" is not, in my opinion, occasioned by that.

So everyone who don’t agree with Democrats are pretty much scum bags.

Is that right, Frankie lol?

[domer76]

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.

^Terminal stupid.

Fake fallacy.

LSMFT

[Frank Apisa]

So everyone who don’t agree with Democrats are pretty much scum bags.

Is that right, Frankie lol?

Not all of them.

[Bigdog]

It is my opinion that you are intelligent enough to see that argument to be pure bullshit.

I have no idea of why you are making it.

Well, thank you, Frank. You're the smartest liberal on this board.


Trump asked for two favors from Zelensky, right?
If Zelensky felt pressured, and felt the whole $400 million dollar gift was contingent on just starting two investigations, ... don't you think he would have acted on them immediately?

[Frank Apisa]

Well, thank you, Frank. You're the smartest liberal on this board.


Trump asked for two favors from Zelensky, right?
If Zelensky felt pressured, and felt the whole $400 million dollar gift was contingent on just starting two investigations, ... don't you think he would have acted on them immediately?

President Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform...and, unlike Trump, may actually be a man of character. Add to that the fact that he knows he must retain the good-will of the United States...and getting involved in the politics of the US might prove, over the long run, to be destructive of that end.

Not all politicians in this world think only in short-term terms. President Zelensky almost certainly saw through the transparent extortion attempts...and decided not to get involved...or at very least, to delay involvement in what was obviously an attempt to get him involve in Trumpian politics.

President Zelensky even knew that the investigations were not necessary. He was being extorted just to pretend they were being made...just to make a public announcement that they were being made. There was no question that it was a ruse to help the Trump campaign.

So...the answer to your question is NO.