Impeachment Inquiry

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Greyfox

This may be the article `which interpreted Feldman's previous writings as impeachment for fake news.


https://qz.com/956912/could-trump-be...sor-thinks-so/

I am not going to search it. Copy it and post it and tell me where in the link it is. Already checked out a whole bunch of bogus articles. None saying.....

Trumps should be impeached for use of the term fake news

[Tom]

Originally Posted by hcap

Hey fact-free chimp, where is the quote in your article? Insult me all you want. It does not support a word you babble. In case you forgot.....

Seek help dude.
I have no article. Are you seeing articles?

Oh, maybe you mean the link a few posts ago.

IT certainly DOES support what I said.
IT identifies the idiot as a MAN, NOT a women, as YOU thought!
And then tried to cover up by editing your stupid post.

Slow down, take a breath, you are going out of control again.
You can only make yourself so big of an ass in on thread.

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by Tom

Din't blame me - I have said all along that we have only hear selected leaks from half of the hearings and witnessed Assumptions, Opinions, and what ifs from a very select and limited groups of witnesses.

Only a total idiot would say we have heard anything at all fair or complete.

If you don't believe me, just read a few more threads here!

So you haven’t reached a conclusion yet either, got it.

[Greyfox]

Originally Posted by hcap

I am not going to search it. Copy it and post it and tell me where in the link it is. Already checked out a whole bunch of bogus articles. None saying.....

Well the headline says:

A Harvard Law professor thinks Trump could be impeached over “fake news” accusations


If you can't read that, I ain't helping you.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Tom

Seek help dude.
I have no article. Are you seeing articles?

Oh, maybe you mean the link a few posts ago.

IT certainly DOES support what I said.
IT identifies the idiot as a MAN, NOT a women, as YOU thought!
And then tried to cover up by editing your stupid post.

Slow down, take a breath, you are going out of control again.
You can only make yourself so big of an ass in on thread.

Really. You posted this.

Meet Noah Feldman, the Harvard professor testifying before the Judiciary Committee
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...1UL/story.html

As I told Greyfox,.......

I am not going to search it. Copy it and post it and tell me where in the link it is. Already checked out a whole bunch of bogus articles. None saying.....

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Wabash

So you haven’t reached a conclusion yet either, got it.

Nice try.
I have conclude that so far, I have not seen one shred of evidence that Trump did anything wrong. Noths so far contradicts his story or that of the Ukrainian president, who said no quid pro quo, no extortion.

So far, NO FACTS contradict that.

That my friend, is NOT jumping to conclusions.
But that was what your were trying to do, wasn't it?

I have said all along, if the dem thins they have a case, present a FAIR investigations and do it by the l aw. Allow witnesses, cross-examinations, etc. NOT the dog and phony show so far.

Let me ask you - WHY ar the dems afraid to do this fairly, in the open? IF they have such a strong case, what are they afraid of?

Got that, too?

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by Tom

Nice try.
I have conclude that so far, I have not seen one shred of evidence that Trump did anything wrong. Noths so far contradicts his story or that of the Ukrainian president, who said no quid pro quo, no extortion.

So far, NO FACTS contradict that.

That my friend, is NOT jumping to conclusions.
But that was what your were trying to do, wasn't it?

I have said all along, if the dem thins they have a case, present a FAIR investigations and do it by the l aw. Allow witnesses, cross-examinations, etc. NOT the dog and phony show so far.

Let me ask you - WHY ar the dems afraid to do this fairly, in the open? IF they have such a strong case, what are they afraid of?

Got that, too?

I don’t know the answers to your questions Tom. How would I? I never said they were doing things fairly. I have no control over what they do. All I’ve said is I want to hear “all the evidence” first before reaching a conclusion. When I said that, I was told by multiple Republicans here that nothing happened, so they made their conclusions obviously.

But you said above that only an idiot or a Democrat could reach a conclusion based on the evidence so far. I guess they must be idiots then, according to you.

I’ll say it again, until I hear what certain witnesses(everyone knows who they are) have to say about this, I’ll remain completely neutral. Unlike the many on here who already have made up their mind. And I agree, the ones who have already made up their minds are either idiots or Democrats.

[FantasticDan]

Originally Posted by Tom

Nice try.
Let me ask you - WHY ar the dems afraid to do this fairly, in the open? IF they have such a strong case, what are they afraid of?

Wasn't this all explained to you like a month ago? How there are stages to the process, and every part of it so far has followed precedent and law?

[delayjf]

Still no source.

Its from the same Bloomberg article Fantastic Dan post. See below

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...of-impeachment.

[delayjf]

I am not going to search it. Copy it and post it and tell me where in the link it is. Already checked out a whole bunch of bogus articles. None saying.....

Yet I keep hearing from you libs that Trump told the Ukraine President to dig up dirt on Biden or no military aid. Yet, a close examination of the transcripts clearly shows he did not say anything of the sort.

I say again, Biden's video has been in the public domain for at least a year. Trump did not dig it up. He could have put that video in his hip pocket and revisited that issue in the upcoming summer campaign (assuming Biden got the nomination), it would have been just as politically damaging as is, without any further facts yet to be uncovered. And it was all free. Dumb ass hillary paid millions for her fake news.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Wabash

I don’t know the answers to your questions Tom. How would I? I never said they were doing things fairly. I have no control over what they do. All I’ve said is I want to hear “all the evidence” first before reaching a conclusion. When I said that, I was told by multiple Republicans here that nothing happened, so they made their conclusions obviously.

But you said above that only an idiot or a Democrat could reach a conclusion based on the evidence so far. I guess they must be idiots then, according to you.

I’ll say it again, until I hear what certain witnesses(everyone knows who they are) have to say about this, I’ll remain completely neutral. Unlike the many on here who already have made up their mind. And I agree, the ones who have already made up their minds are either idiots or Democrats.

Then I assume you are also saying the Dems who say there IS something are idiots too?

The basis of law in this country is innocent until proven guilty.
Trump has release the transcript and the PREz of Ukraine has stat4ed there was no QPQ and no Extortion.

No facts have yet to emerge that disprove that or Trump's allegation that he has done nothing.

We DO have a video of Bidne bragging about extorting getting a prosecutor fired and alleged Obama backed him on it. And we have proof the demanded action was performed.

IF evidence ever does emerge that Trump really did something, that is a whole new ballgame. But so far, we are not even close to having any such evidence.

YouTube

[Wabash]

Originally Posted by Tom

Then I assume you are also saying the Dems who say there IS something are idiots too?

The basis of law in this country is innocent until proven guilty.
Trump has release the transcript and the PREz of Ukraine has stat4ed there was no QPQ and no Extortion.

No facts have yet to emerge that disprove that or Trump's allegation that he has done nothing.

We DO have a video of Bidne bragging about extorting getting a prosecutor fired and alleged Obama backed him on it. And we have proof the demanded action was performed.

IF evidence ever does emerge that Trump really did something, that is a whole new ballgame. But so far, we are not even close to having any such evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXA--dj2-CY

You assume right but assumptions are not allowed here I’ve been told. But I’m sure it just depends who makes the assumption.

And you are right, we are not close to seeing all the evidence. But we aren’t close to hearing all the testimony either. Cant have evidence without the proper people testifying. If and when we hear from the witnesses who actually have first hand knowledge(again, we all know who they are) I’m certain all of this will be cleared up one way or another. Until then it will continue to be he said, she said.

[Tom]

All we have heard so far is assumptions.
Everyone has one of these:

A = assumption
O = opinion
T = theory
( o ) =

So far, all we have heard are the ( o )'s

It is not really he said she did.
It is more like He said, he heard it, told her, she says, but it was over a cell phone across the room.......

[Greyfox]

The transcript of the Trump-Zelensky phone call is the only evidence needed. There is nothing in it that he should be impeached for.
Impeaching over a phone call with a debatable remark of intent??? That's nuts.
If you can read it's at:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/15/polit...all/index.html

[hcap]

Originally Posted by delayjf

Its from the same Bloomberg article Fantastic Dan post. See below

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/ar...of-impeachment.

Copy and post the sentence saying that. Tell me where in the article it is. Please. Remember this is what you are posting

"Trumps should be impeached for use of the term fake news"