Impeachment hearings

Yes. Whatever I say. Massive amounts of evidence.

Testimony and Evidence Collected in the Trump Impeachment Inquiry

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html

You can say in your opinion you dislike the evidence because it hurts your unpopular team, but it still counts as evidence. By definition.

1. I never said 30 laws. I said 30 minutes.....ouch you're bad at this.

2. I don't know for sure which laws were broken, I'm not a legal expert. I'm saying we know this scandal happened, from the vast evidence I just linked. You're moving the goal post to impeachability/legality debate as I knew you would, smart. You've finally joined the rest of the GOP and accept Trump did this. Thank you.

1. If it's not Breitbart, then where else are you getting this 100% fake Opinion and Hearsay nonsense from? Give me citation that confirms ALL of the hearings are just opinion and hearsay (They aren't).

2. It's a myth BECAUSE SOME OF THE TESTIMONIES WERE ALSO FIRST HAND AND OF EVENTS, not feelings. Like Vindman and Sondland. Text messages and e-mails aren't either. Who is feeding you these lies?

3. I never said 30 laws. Here is the evidence, again https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html

Why aren't you refuting the evidence with your own data, or offering citation? What's with all the vague trash? Conceding already? Surely a dozen career officials and war heroes are all committing perjury but the guy with 10,000+ lies is telling the truth on twitter!

@zaryia: lmao!!! Cant tell me what law was broken but claim to have hard evidence, hard evidence of what??? You dont even have the crime pinned down lol

So what crime do you think they are impeacing trump for??? Oh yeah your not a legal expert and have no clue what crime was commited , but you got that hard evidence right? you have the scandal right lol

Insanity, this is insanity

Massive evidence? Where?

You consider that link massive amounts of evidence?

I'm idealistic and want everyone to be equal before the law. Unfortunately that ship sailed decades ago in the USA.

I do find it interesting that, when confronted with the knowledge that a lot of people don't see the situation the same way that you do, you guys resort to the comforting notion that other people are being duped by propaganda. The underlying presumption you are making is that these people that disagree with your assessment must not be smart enough to see the truth that your superior intellect allows you to see.

Acknowledging that you are, of course, the smartest person in the room, and therefor are, of course, correct in your assertion that the need to impeach is an objective truth, I still have a question for you.

What is going to be your reaction if/when my prediction comes true? Will you feel betrayed by Nancy and Co, or will your anger be directed at your fellow citizens that refuse to accept your objective truth?

Bolded where you just lost your argument to everyone in this thread. You really don't know, you don't have facts. Evidence can be proven wrong in court, it's just gathered information.

*yawn*

@Damedius: Yes, my link literally gives quite a bit of evidence.

Your opinions on that is irrelevant, it is by definition evidence, and a lot of it. That is a dictionary fact. Please stop debating facts.

@n64dd: Yawn.

You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. I expected a link or citation but I keep getting opinions from you. Not all of the massive amount of evidence are facts, but some of it is. The texts and emails are factually conversations that existed and happened. The fact witnesses corroborated events and statements that factually happened.

So you can't refute any of the evidence. Why can't you join the rest of the sane GOP and change your goal post to subjective legal debates instead of debating against the mass evidence and facts?

Even jeezers has moved on, and knows to do that. I thought you were at least a bit smarter than him of all people.

"2. I don't know for sure which laws were broken,"

Not all of the massive amount of evidence are facts,

It's quite apparent that you can't formulate arguments at all.

"Look link, massive evidence. Can't argue with facts."

You have to be easily the biggest troll on these forums.

@n64dd:

You're trying to own me by my honestly stating not ALL of the evidence is facts? Troll? Much of it is facts though.....why ignore that?

I'm not a legal expert, I told you the potential crimes several posts ago.

I'm stating we have evidence he tried to get Ukraine to help him against Biden. He even froze the aid for this. That much is certain from the evidence.

Exactly what crimes this constitutes as are being to be determined and debated. Some GOP accept that fact and are saying it's not that illegal or impeachable. Many legal experts disagree.

You seem completely confused.

@Damedius:

My argument is solid because it is 100% factual.

I am stating for a fact there is a lot of evidence against Trump. This is a pure fact. Your opinions on said evidence are pointless. You need to present your own data showing it is invalid, with valid sources.

You haven't even attempted to argue against and refute the massive amounts of evidence I posted. At least try, because you are losing this debate badly. Only one of us has data.

It's extremely odd and a bit troubling that there still exists people that are saying these allegations aren't facts. Whether you agree with the impeachment.....the facts supporting it are true. Even the GOP has come around to the facts in the case.

What's troubling is you and Zariya don't know what facts are.

Allegations aren't facts and you would both know that if you were able to use the power of reasoning.

Allegations are claims not facts. Go back to school and do your homework.

You stated you have evidence which might not be valid for a crime you don't even know what it is.

What version of facts are you using?

Surely it's not this "a thing that is known or proved to be true." or this "the truth about events as opposed to interpretation".

Maybe you could tell me what you think a fact is because you use the word rather loosely.

Is it wrong to wish that we can return to the point where everyone is equal to law again? To work for such ideals?

I don't think most who share my views on this case believe they are of superior intellect compared to those who have another opinion on it. It's an odd assumption to have. Saying more about you perhaps.

Propaganda do work. But also it seems like many will cling to their team and agreeing with it as if disagreeing with means you no longer a Republican in this case. It's not unique to Republicans, but more common among Republicans.

Guy 1: Guys look at this massive amount of evidence!!

Guy 2: Evidence of what crime???

Guy 1: Not sure about a crime but we got all this evidence!! We are going to impeach him! Its happening!!

Guy 2: Wut??

Well it is not like this has been decided by the Supreme Court yet... :P

what are you trying to get at with this?

It's an impeachment inquiry

@drlostrib: Exactly, which is why its rediculous for anyone to assume they have what they need for impeachment, they havent pinned down a crime, several posters here claim we have a ton of evidence, a ton of evidence towards a non existant crime at this point, so how is the evidence worth a damn if you dont have a crime pinned down.

The evidence is worth nothing, because they dont even know what they are trying to prove for impeachment. This whole thing is just a partisan clown show.

This is no watergate, this is a joke.

No it seems pretty evident that they're trying to investigate and determine if the president has abused his power

@drlostrib: so would you agree that we are not at a point in this yet to impeach? You agree there has been no crime proven correct?

still not sure what you're trying to get at by asking these types of questions. The house just needs to investigate and pass formal allegations of impeachable offenses

@drlostrib: the point is people are pretending the case is closed when in reality there is no case.

Thats why you dont want to answer my question.

Also evidence without a crime is worthless

I don't think anyone thinks it's a closed case when it comes to an impeachment trial in the senate, which has the job deciding if there is enough proof of a crime--or that what is proven rises to the level of an impeachable offense requiring removal

But it also seems disingenuous to claim there is no case

@drlostrib: whats the crime?

Wow, I'm not sure how this thread got so off the rails. As I understand it, the primary crime being investigated is bribery. It's right there in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. The evidence for it is overwhelming, but he won't be removed from office because, as I've mentioned here before, the impeachment process is a political one and the GOP won't remove him unless they have to for political survival.

@mattbbpl: finnaly someone with an actual accusation of a crime, bribery. Thank you, I just wanted someone to state the crime suspected.

That way we know what needs to be proven with evidence.

Side note: do you guys trust Adam Shiff, why are his eyes like this? https://youtu.be/iXEWHtVlZJo

So you're alleging that Trump did something like this?

Extortion is the other part of the crime I believe.

Now are we going to continue to stay on topic or whataboutism into the next dimension?

I never said evidence of a specific crimes, I said evidence of specific actions which we literally do have. We now know he did those things. I did gave an example of 10 potential crimes those actions might result in, so you lied there.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/10/04/us/politics/president-trump-impeachment-inquiry.html

Be less of a bad-faith actor, and frame it as a new debate, for example

"Zaryia, I understand there is evidence Trump took those actions and I now accept he did those things, due to the overwhelming evidence. But what crime is he breaking by doing those things? And is it really impeachable?"

P.S. Why do conservative posters lie about people's posts when we can just scroll back.

"Finally" I gave you potential crimes yesterday. You're trolling and shit posting.

@zaryia said:

https://theintercept.com/2019/10/10/trump-crimes-law/

Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.”

Code § 610, which covers that crime rather clearly under the title: “Coercion of political activity.”

Code § 607, “Place of solicitation,”

Code § 30121, “Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.”

Straw-Man argument and goal post move.

I never said I have evidence of any specific crime, I said evidence of specific actions. Politicians will determine what crimes he committed from those confirmed actions. I gave you 10 potential ones upon request, as a new and more subjective topic. Don't conflate your subject change request as my factual base claim.

Start a new debate in a good faith manner, rather than trying to save face with the old one you lost over the course of 2 months of evidence gathering threads where you either avoided like the plague or peeped in and got decimated. IE:

"Zaryia, I understand there is evidence Trump took those actions and I now accept he did those things, due to the overwhelming evidence. But what crime is he breaking by doing those things? And is it really impeachable?"

Well in general they probably think the president has abused his power in relation to the Ukraine quid pro quo situation, may also be something related to obstruction if they think he is purposefully impeding or intervening in their investigation

No

It's nothing like what Trump did. Your false claims of that video is literally a debunked conspiracy theory by all known fact checkers. That was 100% legal, since it wasn't for his campaign and was FOR the entire US government and most of the world. They all wanted Shokin out, since Shokin WASN'T investigating and was corrupt.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

You're super bad at this whole politics thing.

@Damedius: Biden and his crackhead son get a pass bro, this is basically the first commandment of Political Gamers. ;)

No, it's a disingenuous comparison

Why are you repeating fake conspiracy theories?

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Do you have citation showing that it is real from a valid source? All fact check sources I check show it is fake.

I'm going to guess your next post will contain no such citation, and will be vague nonsense.

P.S. Thank you for no longer disputing what Trump did. Although fake whataboutisms are pretty bad, at least they are less insane.

Basically. It's only wrong when the other team does it.

That's the insanity of this. The USA and American politicians do this all the time to other nations around the globe.

Which means that the majority of people pushing for impeachment have no rational or consistent thoughts on the matter. The media whips them into a frenzy and they start foaming at the mouth.

But that's not what happened.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Joe Biden's pressure on Ukraine

Trump has also claimed that Biden pressured Ukraine to take chief prosecutor Viktor Shokin "off the case." Biden pressured Ukrainian leaders to fire Shokin -- the Obama administration, US allies and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists saw Shokin as unwilling to prosecute elite corruption -- but there is no public evidence that Biden sought to get Shokin removed from any particular case.Full fact check here.

Why the fiction?

P.S. Thank you for no longer disputing what Trump did. Although fake whataboutisms are pretty bad, at least they are less insane.

There was a video right there that you avoided like the post you avoided where I schooled you on the English language.

Stay in your lane and just post links while parroting talking points.

The video shows nothing illegal or wrong through. He's not pressuring them for his campaign, he's pressuring them for the entire planet because Shokin was extremely corrupt and NOT investigating companies. Shokin was not his US political rival. The reasoning was sound, not a fake conspiracy. That's normal foreign policy.

This has been thoroughly fact checked, you have no sources while I have all fact checkers on my side.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/28/politics/fact-checking-trump-ukraine-scandal-bidens/index.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2019/09/trump-twists-facts-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Trump's missing context: What happened with the Ukrainian prosecutor

In castigating Biden's effort to get the prosecutor general fired, Trump has declined to mention an important fact: a whole lot of other people were also trying to get him fired at the time.The Obama administration, American allies, the International Monetary Fund and Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, among others, had all made clear that they were displeased with the performance of Viktor Shokin, who became prosecutor general in 2015.Shokin was widely faulted for declining to bring prosecutions of elites' corruption, and he was even accused of hindering corruption investigations. His deputy, Vitaliy Kasko, resigned in February 2016, alleging that Shokin's office was itself corrupt.The International Monetary Fund warned Ukraine in February 2016 that it risked losing financial support if it did not clean up its act. The Financial Times explained in its article on the warning that then-President Petro Poroshenko was facing pressure to replace Shokin, whom the newspaper described as a "long-time loyalist" of the president; the article continued, "Mr. Shokin has been criticized for failing to bring to justice any of the snipers who killed dozens of protesters in central Kiev in the final days of the revolution, and for dragging his feet over investigating senior officials and businesspeople."In a September 2015 speech, the US ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, used blunt language in criticizing Shokin, blasting "corrupt actors within the Prosecutor General's Office" who were "making things worse by openly and aggressively undermining reform." Then, during a visit to Ukraine, Biden, who had long handled Ukraine issues for the Obama administration, applied public and private pressure on the government.

You are extremely bad at debates. This is a new low.

It's a fact that there is large amounts of evidence showing what Trump did. You can have your opinions that it's unfair and a witchhunt, but that is a fact.

I linked the evidence for you, but you're too busy losing another debate right now. Did you just get into politics from 8chan or whatever?

I don't get it.

Trump didn't do that. I don't think you are informed on this topic at all............

Biden is not using a fake conspiracy, is not using secret back channels, and is not helping his campaign. He is however, aided by the whole world who wanted Shokin out.

You clearly just got into the English language because meanings and definitions elude you.

So it's only bribery or extortion if it's for your campaign.

Speaking of campaigns, are currently campaigning for dumbest poster on the forums?

Yup. Just got into politics. That's why the full ad-homs and zero citation has been given for several pages now.

You've lost so bad it isn't even funny.

There objectively IS evidence for Trump's actions. A lot of it. It's not my opinion that there is evidence. Welcome to reality.