Trump faces two deadlines as U.S. Congress ramps up impeachment focus

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Hunter biden was investigated already and cleared.

 

The impeachment has nothing to do with anything biden may have done. Its what trump did.

 

By whom????

One of your approved obama-era agency officials and liberal media organisations?

LOL

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Agree that Hunter isn't being impeached....but the man who is being impeached has been accused due to his interest in finding out why a useless son of a VP was making so much money in the first place...and what other US government business those payments were linked to.

 

This is highly valid material for investigation....examination of key witnesses in a senate trial could prove

that:

 

1. This was not a witch hunt by Trump to sully a rival.

2. The aim was not to fabricate dirt but to examine a deal that seems very dirty to start with.

 

Any thoughts by anti trumpers on this besides the 'laugh' emojis? 

 

 

No, he's not being accused due to his interest in Hunter Biden.He's being accused because he was pressuring a foreign government to announce an investigation to damage a political rival. There are legitimate ways to pursue an investigation. This isn't one of them.

[Jingthing]

17 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

When someone like yourself....(who allegedly has had me on ignore for the longest time)...comes out to rebut calm reasoning with such hysterical, vacuous and baseless assertions...I smell fear and nervousness.

 

Im even more convinced now that impeachment will be but a dream in the eye of Adam Schiff and his

cohorts.

 

Thank you for the confirmation!

In other words you are totally unable to rebut but my points. 45 bubble forever. 

[bristolboy]

12 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Welcome to the MO of anti Trump brigade here.

 

• No independent, original thoughts or viewpoints

• Slavish reliance on google and putting forward the musings of any liberal media organisation

• All other links are bogus and fake.

• Anyone famous criticises trump, whip out the link like it's the last word

• If anyone from his administration criticises him, whip out the link, underline and print it in bold

• If polls support trump they are fake and dishonest

• If polls go against trump they are reliable and honest

• Anyone who supports Trump is a racist, rapist, factually challenged, moron etc etc

 

This will go on even long after 2020. For your own sanity, do not waste excessive paragraphs of original thinking

on them. Once in a whole, throw them a link that shows they're talking rubbish, laugh in their faces, hold your ground and stand proud and strong.

God bless.

Most of this boils down to Don't bother me with your damned facts

Some are just lies like

"All other links are bogus and fake." I've often used Fox News among other non-liberal links. As have others here. Of course, if you define as liberal any news source  that reports Trump's numerous and provable falsehoods as such, instead of just taking dictation from Trump, I guess you have a point. A bad point but still a point.

 

"• If polls support trump they are fake and dishonest

• If polls go against trump they are reliable and honest"

 

More dishonesty on your part. Cherry picking outlier polls, which is what you do, is intellectually dishonest. Polls should be considered in their totality.

 

Anyone who supports Trump is a racist, rapist, factually challenged, moron etc etc

Well, "factually challenged" does seem to apply to you as I've demonstrated on numerous occasions. 

 

"No independent, original thoughts or viewpoints"

Exactly what points or views have you raised that are independent or original? This is very well picked over ground. The only original comments I've seen from you have also been ungrounded in reality. You know, fictional. Like so much of what Trump says. By that standard, he and you are very original thinkers indeed. Clearly what's bothering you is the stubborn intractability of facts. 

 

[bristolboy]

34 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

It's absurd! 

45 has shown no interest whatsoever in corruption in foreign countries during his entire term other than these two things that interest him only for his personal political benefit.

 

The two

 

The totally debunked conspiracy theory about the Ukraine servers related to the 2016 election. A Putin propaganda inspired conspiracy theory. 

 

The Hunter Biden thing clearly motivated to trash who he regarded at the time to his most serious political opponent.

 

The corruption here is really about 45s actions acting in his own personal interest rather than the interest of the nation. 

 

Impeach! 

29 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

When someone like yourself....(who allegedly has had me on ignore for the longest time)...comes out to rebut calm reasoning with such hysterical, vacuous and baseless assertions...I smell fear and nervousness.

 

Im even more convinced now that impeachment will be but a dream in the eye of Adam Schiff and his

cohorts.

 

Thank you for the confirmation!

Hysterical? Really?  I think this is an instance of what psychologists call "projection."

 

[Sujo]

44 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

By whom????

One of your approved obama-era agency officials and liberal media organisations?

LOL

Ukraine govt.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens

Edited December 4, 2019 by Sujo

[JHolmesJr]

22 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Ukraine govt.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-16/ukraine-prosecutor-says-no-evidence-of-wrongdoing-by-bidens

 

wow! looks like nothing to fear then....Michael Bloombergs paper said it's ok.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

No, he's not being accused due to his interest in Hunter Biden.He's being accused because he was pressuring a foreign government to announce an investigation to damage a political rival. There are legitimate ways to pursue an investigation. This isn't one of them.

 

pressuring.....is that an opinion you inserted? 

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

wow! looks like nothing to fear then....Michael Bloombergs paper said it's ok.

No. The Ukraine govt said so. Many news agencies reported it.

 

You do understand its not the news outlet saying he was cleared but the ukraine govt stating it dont you?

[Sujo]

6 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

pressuring.....is that an opinion you inserted? 

No its the evidence. Trump and mulvaney admitted it.

[muzley]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

No. The Ukraine govt said so. Many news agencies reported it.

 

You do understand its not the news outlet saying he was cleared but the ukraine govt stating it dont you?

The Ukranian government said this also but isn't accepted by the left!!

 

During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

[candide]

1 hour ago, muzley said:

The Ukranian government said this also but isn't accepted by the left!!

 

During the interview in his office in Kyiv, the comedian-turned-president denied, as he has done in the past, that he and Trump ever discussed a decision to withhold American aid to Ukraine for nearly two months in the context of a quid pro quo involving political favors, which are now at the center of the impeachment inquiry in Congress.

So a set of converging testimonies under oath by US officials is less reliable than a statement by a foreign politician. Or is it because he is President?

Wait! I know a country where the President has been caught lying thousands of times! ???? 

Edited December 4, 2019 by candide

[muzley]

9 minutes ago, candide said:

So a set of converging testimonies under oath by US officials is less reliable than a statement by a foreign politician. Or is it because he is President?

Wait! I know a country where the President has been caught lying thousands of times! ???? 

None of them presented hard evidence of wrongdoing. All presumptions and hearsay.

When the Ukranian govt makes statements that suit the left's narrative it's fine, to be believed, but when it suits the right's, not to believed, to be dismissed!!!

[candide]

18 minutes ago, muzley said:

None of them presented hard evidence of wrongdoing. All presumptions and hearsay.

When the Ukranian govt makes statements that suit the left's narrative it's fine, to be believed, but when it suits the right's, not to believed, to be dismissed!!!

They presented uncontested evidence. No one contradicted them under oath.

[J Town]

12 minutes ago, candide said:

They presented uncontested evidence. No one contradicted them under oath.

Haven't you realized you can't get through to some of these folks? If Trump supporters were actually interested in the truth then they wouldn't be Trump supporters in the first place.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, candide said:

They presented uncontested evidence. No one contradicted them under oath.

Because all they offered were presumptions and their own biased opinions.

No evidence except superhuman powers of hearing

hahaha.

[J Town]

Just now, JHolmesJr said:

Because all they offered were presumptions and their own biased opinions.

No evidence except superhuman powers of hearing.

When you believe one man above science, above U.S. Intelligence agencies, above former CIA directors and retired generals and career journalists - when you believe one man above even your own eyes and ears - you are fully indoctrinated.

[JHolmesJr]

6 minutes ago, J Town said:

When you believe one man above science, above U.S. Intelligence agencies, above former CIA directors and retired generals and career journalists - when you believe one man above even your own eyes and ears - you are fully indoctrinated.

nope....just reporting what I saw with my own eyes....read up on the hearings again to refresh your memory.

[J Town]

7 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

nope....just reporting what I saw with my own eyes....read up on the hearings again to refresh your memory.

No. You are refuting facts. I saw the hearings. Witnesses under oath. The lead Republican knowing full well he should have recused himself for his own involvement.

[JHolmesJr]

2 minutes ago, J Town said:

No. You are refuting facts. I saw the hearings. Witnesses under oath. The lead Republican knowing full well he should have recused himself for his own involvement.

 

Naaah....I know what I saw. 

[muzley]

43 minutes ago, J Town said:

No. You are refuting facts. I saw the hearings. Witnesses under oath. The lead Republican knowing full well he should have recused himself for his own involvement.

And you are refuting evidence direct from the Ukranian president who is the alledged victim. He has stated over and over there was no QQP or extorion or bribery. No one produced any direct evidence.

[Brigand]

Waste of time and tax payer money as it'll never get through the Senate. To get a super majority of 67% would require 20+ senators to flip ... not going to happen.

Edited December 4, 2019 by Brigand

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, Brigand said:

Waste of time and tax payer money as it'll never get through the Senate. To get a super majority of 67% would require 20+ senators to flip ... not going to happen.

Exposing a corrupt president is never a waste of money. exposing a corrupt senate at the same time is a bonus.

[Jingthing]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Exposing a corrupt president is never a waste of money. exposing a corrupt senate at the same time is a bonus.

Yes and the 45 cult of personality brigade think they are some kind of perfect psychics. While it's certainly predictable that the house will impeach and the senate won't convict, there is no person on earth that really knows the specifics of the long term impact of the correct decision of the house to exercise their constitutional powers of oversight over a president that has obviously massively abused the office and failed meet his oath. For example as you said the senators not convicting him will be fully exposed. While there is political risk to the democrats to go forward with this there is ALSO political risk for them NOT to. What I'm saying more specifically is that one potential political result of this could be the democrats taking over the senate while keeping the house. 

Edited December 4, 2019 by Jingthing

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Yes and the 45 cult of personality brigade think they are some kind of perfect psychics. While it's certainly predictable that the house will impeach and the senate won't convict, there is no person on earth that really knows the specifics of the long term impact of the correct decision of the house to exercise their constitutional powers of oversight over a president that has obviously massively abused the office and failed meet his oath. For example as you said the senators not convicting him will be fully exposed. While there is political risk to the democrats to go forward with this there is ALSO political risk for them NOT to. What I'm saying more specifically is that one potential political result of this could be the democrats taking over the senate while keeping the house. 

Supposedly this whole exercise  is for the good of the country and not for the good of the Democrats or The republicans , but there seems to be a short supply of Patriots these days.

IMO The "America first " slogan of the republicans is a cruel joke . 

[candide]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Because all they offered were presumptions and their own biased opinions.

No evidence except superhuman powers of hearing

hahaha.

The usual deflection

[candide]

1 hour ago, muzley said:

And you are refuting evidence direct from the Ukranian president who is the alledged victim. He has stated over and over there was no QQP or extorion or bribery. No one produced any direct evidence.

Of course, we all know politicians never lie.... Anyway, contrary to US officials, he did not testify under oath.

 

Additionally, he is more subtle than Trumpers think. For example, in his interview together with Trump, he only refered to the phone call (we now from the testimonies that the QPQ was exerted before and after)

No, you heard that we had, I think, good phone call.  It was normal.  We spoke about many things.  And I — so I think, and you read it, that nobody pushed — pushed me.

Then in his latest interview, he just said he did not act "from a position"..

"Look, I never talked to the president from the position of a quid pro quo," he insisted. "That’s not my thing. … I don’t want us to look like beggars."

 

Smart guy! If things go wrong for Trump, he will be able to argue that he never clearly stated there was no quid pro quo, just that it was not said during the call, or did not act in response to the QPQ (whether there was one or not).

 

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

IF you are making allegations of Trump for Money laundering, that would be a new charge. Call NYPD if you have some evidence. AND .... you did not answer my question.

I answered your irrelevant, off-topic question about Hunter Biden with a question about Trump.  This topic isn't about people without qualifications being overpaid.

 

Trump has fought tooth and nail to keep his finances secret, defying modern precedent.  Hadn't you heard?

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

And where are you from?

I referenced a credible poll supporting my claim.  Why does it matter where I'm from?

[heybruce]

16 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Just out of curiousity. Pretend the the man Donald J Trump does not exist for a moment. Do you wonder what Hunter Biden did for $85,000.00 a month while on the board of Burisma? I disagree with your characterization of the call discrediting conclusions of multiple intelligence agencies. I don't think it suspicious, I think that the topic was a news item made pretty obvious by Biden. I consider it personally to be the largest case of its kind I have ever seen. I want to know. So again you have zero curiousity about what Hunter Biden was doing to get paid $85,000.00 a month from Burisma? And please enough trying to convict Trump that is up to the Senate IF IT EVEN GETS THAT FAR! So allow me to repeat myself again, Hunter Biden? 85K that seems normal to you? Try to analyze that question by removing Trump completely from your mind. Pretend Obama is President if it make it easier for you to ponder Hunter Biden's role.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, this topic isn't about Hunter Biden.  He's not President.  He's not running for office.  There is no evidence his employment in any way influenced US policy.

 

Trump specifically referenced Crowdstrike and the discredited conspiracy theory that the Democratic servers were in Ukraine.  This is contrary to the conclusions of all the US intelligence agencies and every congressional investigation.