4 Key Pieces of Evidence Undermining Arguments For Impeachment

GOP making this way too hard. Just say the whistleblower's name backwards. Superman did this all the time with Mxyzptlk.

a reply to: xuenchen

Those are pretty weak arguments, and easy to punch holes in, in my opinion.

But most of all, they're premature. First, they need to hear the testimony, then they need to answer the articles of impeachment, as they are written, when they are finally written.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Those are pretty weak arguments, and easy to punch holes in, in my opinion.

But most of all, they're premature. First, they need to hear the testimony, then they need to answer the articles of impeachment, as they are written, when they are finally written.

Why is it with trump and his alleged quid pro quo, we need to have investigations, wait for evidence, etc before we can make up our minds

But with biden and obama's admitted quid pro quo, we not only can declare it fine without any investigation whatsoever, but can say any proposed investigation of it is a crime?

a reply to: Grambler

1. The July 25 call summary — the best evidence of the conversation — shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure.

2. Both President Zelensky and President Trump have publicly and repeatedly said there was no pressure to investigate the President’s political rivals.

3. The Ukrainian government was not aware that U.S. security assistance was delayed at the time of the July 25 phone call.

4. The United States provided security assistance to Ukraine and President Trump met with President Zelensky without Ukraine ever investigating President Trump‘s political rivals.

I don't see anything about Biden in those 4 arguments.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

And your point is?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Those are pretty weak arguments, and easy to punch holes in, in my opinion.

But most of all, they're premature. First, they need to hear the testimony, then they need to answer the articles of impeachment, as they are written, when they are finally written.

Those look like facts to normal people.

Not conjecture, innuendo, and made up fairy tales like the Schiff "witnesses" are conjuring and "perjuring" up 😃 🎱

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And your point is?

That, your question is off topic? Biden doesn't appear to be the subject of any of the Republican defense points.

a reply to: xuenchen

Those look like facts to normal people.

There are a lot of "facts" to be considered.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: xuenchen

Those are pretty weak arguments, and easy to punch holes in, in my opinion.

But most of all, they're premature. First, they need to hear the testimony, then they need to answer the articles of impeachment, as they are written, when they are finally written.

I'm thinking that, this is just not the about the actors we know are scheduled to appear, and more about any witnesses those actors could have. Something to think about.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And your point is?

That, your question is off topic? Biden doesn't appear to be the subject of any of the Republican defense points.

Me showing even better defenses for trump is no more off topic than you saying you dont think the defense given were that good.

Bidens QPQ should be investigated, trump had every right to pursue that.

a reply to: Grambler

I disagree. I posted an opinion about the 4 arguments presented by Republicans, in the OP.

You posted whataboutism that distract from the 4 points listed in the OP.

a reply to: smurfy

I'm thinking that, this is just not the about the actors we know are scheduled to appear, and more about any witnesses those actors could have. Something to think about.

Do you mean like Rudy Giuliani?

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And your point is?

That, your question is off topic? Biden doesn't appear to be the subject of any of the Republican defense points.

Me showing even better defenses for trump is no more off topic than you saying you dont think the defense given were that good.

Bidens QPQ should be investigated, trump had every right to pursue that.

Speak of The Devil(s) ........................ !! 😃

Ukrainian Officials Release Records of 46 Payments to Hunter Biden from Burisma Holdings, 38 Payments were for $83,333 Totaling Over $3.1 Million

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Grambler

I disagree. I posted an opinion about the 4 arguments presented by Republicans, in the OP.

You posted whataboutism that distract from the 4 points listed in the OP.

I disagree with you.

Posting better defenses of Trump is not off topic. Pinting out the people asking for evidence and investigations looking into trumps alleged qpq fight tooth and nail against an investigation into Bidens admitted qpq seems very relevant.

I suppose if you feel otherwise contact the mods and ask them to remove my comment.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: smurfy

I'm thinking that, this is just not the about the actors we know are scheduled to appear, and more about any witnesses those actors could have. Something to think about.

Do you mean like Rudy Giuliani?

Everything Giuliani did was perfectly legal and 100% ethical 🙂

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And your point is?

That, your question is off topic? Biden doesn't appear to be the subject of any of the Republican defense points.

Me showing even better defenses for trump is no more off topic than you saying you dont think the defense given were that good.

Bidens QPQ should be investigated, trump had every right to pursue that.

Speak of The Devil(s) ........................ !! 😃

Ukrainian Officials Release Records of 46 Payments to Hunter Biden from Burisma Holdings, 38 Payments were for $83,333 Totaling Over $3.1 Million

Nothing to see there!

I mean, its not like Joe biden would have an interest in stopping an investigation into his sons company that was earning him millions of dollars.


meanwhile,. the same people who claim that argue if trump made any money at all in russia before he was president, that proves he is corrupt and needs an investigation.

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: xuenchen

They miss the best argument

Trump is right to want to investigate Joe Biden and the Obama admin and their admitted extortion and quid pro quo using 1 billion US tax dollars to fire the prosecutor looking into to bidens sons company.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Its really that simple. It doesnt matter if trump used quid pro quo (he didnt based on thetranscript and zelenkys statements). Any time an executive offical uses huge sums of our tax dollars to force the firing of someone looking into their families business, they need to be investigated.

Therefore there is no cause for impeachment.

That's the grand smoke show now isn't it. Has been for the past three years.

a reply to: Grambler

I disagree with you.

Posting better defenses of Trump is not off topic.

You think this question of me...

Why is it with trump and his alleged quid pro quo, we need to have investigations, wait for evidence, etc before we can make up our minds

But with biden and obama's admitted quid pro quo, we not only can declare it fine without any investigation whatsoever, but can say any proposed investigation of it is a crime?

Is a better defense than the 4 points listed by the Republicans?

You're arguing with the wrong person.

My point is, it's too early to list defensive talking points, because they don't have the charges yet.

For example, how will they defend obstruction charges? It's not in those 4 talking points. Neither are any defensive strategies for abuse of office.

Basically, the 4 talking points are merely confirming that Trump failed to seal the deal, not that he didn't use his office to try.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I feel the best defense is Biden should be investigated, hence trump was right to pursue it, and there is no case for impeachment

I feel pointing out the people saying trump should be impeached are the same ones who though Biden’s quid pro quo was fine, and they are trying to prevent an investigation into it is necessary as well

a reply to: Grambler

I feel the best defense is Biden should be investigated, hence trump was right to pursue it, and there is no case for impeachment

So, if they find "Biden corruption", then that means it was okay for Trump to have extorted Ukraine, withholding congressional approved aid against Russian aggression during a "hot war"? The ends justify the means?