Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes I was guilty of owning you too many times in these debates and calling out your bullshit. I’m sure you got tired of it and decided to ignore me. Please feel free to do it again. I have no use for trolls like you in my life.If I put you on Ignore, then you are guilty of something. I just can't figure it out yet, BUT MY FEELINGS tell me so.Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?! Ok you got me there. Trump didn’t do that. But his agenda was made very clear from his top guys, all of whom he blocked from testifying, down through those on the ground who actually did testify and all agreed as to what the agenda was. Wake up man, this isn’t even a sly cover upNo guessing necessary we know the agenda and we know the i tensions. It’s not a mystery. Several members of Trump foreign policy team testified to it... aid was withheld, it was leveraged for investigations. Not rocket scienceBrilliant.No shit. If they had felt pressure there is no way they would publicly say that. Come on man, use your brain, you don’t bite the hand that feeds
First we must assume Trump said something nobody witnessed him saying.
Second we must must assume somebody felt pressure because they said they didn't.
It doesn't take Perry Mason to defend against that.
Yet every damn one of them, on cross examination, said they had no direct knowledge that was the case. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. The one person with first hand knowledge of what the president said, testified that the president told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. He just wanted Zelensky to do what he campaigned on. You can spew the commie talking points all you wish, that doesn't alter the facts presented.
.
Your Guilt is out there in the Unseen Pyschic World of LibPhuckistan.
He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"
The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was. You can take the head in the sand argument and say that Trump had no clue what was going on... I’ll laugh. You can take the deep state argument and Say that all the people many of whom were appointed by Trump are all lying to Congress and out to get Trump... I’ll laugh. Or you can take the realistic approach and acknowledge that Trump had an agenda and pushed his people to get these investigations announced while using the aid as leverage. Mark my words... you will be using this argument in a few weeks. You will admit that Trump did this but will say it is not an impeachable offense and your focus will be that the investigations were valid US Security concerns. That’s where all this is going. And I will laugh when I see you fall in lineThank you for the personal liberal extremist Trump-hating OPINION and translation...which perfectly sums up both disastrous Coup Attempt Hearings held by the Democrats.Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?!
Bwuhahahahaha....the snowflakes and Democrats keep trying to 'splain' what happened, what Trump and his team were THINKING, what they really MEANT, but everything - the hearings and every comment made is self-explanatory, no snowflake translation needed.
Schiff's committee hearings did not produce a crime or abuse of power, did not produce evidence of any crime or abuse of power, did not produce 1 single witness - someone who actually witnessed ANYTHING. It was sad and pathetic...and criminal.
Nadler's committee hearings presented 3 proven anti-Trump/Trump-hating, DNC-Donating liberal extremist socialist Democrat Extremist University professors who gave their OPINION that Trump deserves Impeachment, and one DEMOCRAT Constitutional Scholar that declared what the Democrats are doing is dangerous to our Republic and the only ones abusing power is the DEMOCRAS!
If you can't READ the transcripts, you're in luck - it was broadcast live and you can still watch the videos.
You mean Mick Mulvaney the guy that runs that department who said during a press conference on national Tv that they did the QPQ?Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?! Ok you got me there. Trump didn’t do that. But his agenda was made very clear from his top guys, all of whom he blocked from testifying, down through those on the ground who actually did testify and all agreed as to what the agenda was. Wake up man, this isn’t even a sly cover upNo guessing necessary we know the agenda and we know the i tensions. It’s not a mystery. Several members of Trump foreign policy team testified to it... aid was withheld, it was leveraged for investigations. Not rocket scienceBrilliant.
First we must assume Trump said something nobody witnessed him saying.
Second we must must assume somebody felt pressure because they said they didn't.
It doesn't take Perry Mason to defend against that.
Yet every damn one of them, on cross examination, said they had no direct knowledge that was the case. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. The one person with first hand knowledge of what the president said, testified that the president told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. He just wanted Zelensky to do what he campaigned on. You can spew the commie talking points all you wish, that doesn't alter the facts presented.
.
Wrong again, the guy from OMB didn't back up those claims, why do you think shitt didn't call him for the public hearings.
.
Oh my bad, who are you talking about then and what did they say?You mean Mick Mulvaney the guy that runs that department who said during a press conference on national Tv that they did the QPQ?Oh you mean Trump didn’t call them personally and say I’d like a quid pro quo with Ukraine aid for these interviews?! Ok you got me there. Trump didn’t do that. But his agenda was made very clear from his top guys, all of whom he blocked from testifying, down through those on the ground who actually did testify and all agreed as to what the agenda was. Wake up man, this isn’t even a sly cover upNo guessing necessary we know the agenda and we know the i tensions. It’s not a mystery. Several members of Trump foreign policy team testified to it... aid was withheld, it was leveraged for investigations. Not rocket science
Yet every damn one of them, on cross examination, said they had no direct knowledge that was the case. Assumptions and presumptions are not evidence. The one person with first hand knowledge of what the president said, testified that the president told him that he wanted nothing from Ukraine. He just wanted Zelensky to do what he campaigned on. You can spew the commie talking points all you wish, that doesn't alter the facts presented.
.
Wrong again, the guy from OMB didn't back up those claims, why do you think shitt didn't call him for the public hearings.
.
NO.
.
Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
There were 31 Democrats in the House That voted to impeach Clinton. This is a hoax.He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"
Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.
Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.
Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....
And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....
Zero Republicans voted to Impeach Trump.There were 31 Democrats in the House That voted to impeach Clinton. This is a hoax.He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"
Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.
Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.
Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....
And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....
Pelosi is a GOOD Catholic that does not Hate The President and that prays for him.He used THE ROYAL "US" which means "Me"
Bill Clinton placed his whole defense in his Sexual Harassment law suit on the definition of HIS word 'IS'.
- He was found guilty of Contempt and stripped of his license to practice law.
Snowflakes are attempting to claim we can not believe our own eyes and ears when watching a videotaped confession by former VP Biden of extorting the previous Ukraine PM, that we must listen to them and believe them as they tell us what Joe MEANT / was THINKING, and that really wasn't a videotaped confession.
Pelosi snapped today, accusing reporter James Rosen of ACCUSING her of hating the President, despite the undeniable fact that he did not do so - he ASKED her IF she hated President Trump.
- Dems just can't stop making easily debunked false accusations....
And now the English Language 'experts' are attempting to dictate the new definition of the word 'US' to fit their failed, hollow coup attempt cover story claim....
Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed
No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.
No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley
The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'
Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!
Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence?Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed
No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.
No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley
The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'
Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!
whats fiction about it? I’m asking what would be considered criminal or not. I’m not making the case that Trump did all that.Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence.Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed
No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.
No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley
The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'
Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!
Unless the Question is About Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma it's a fictional question. That situation is the only situation where Ukraine was pressured and Extorted to do something and they in fact DID the very thing DEMANDED of them by JOE BIDEN and he OPENLY Bragged about HIS CRIME.whats fiction about it? I’m asking what would be considered criminal or not. I’m not making the case that Trump did all that.Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence.Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed
No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.
No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley
The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'
Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!
Your premise is fictional. It is perfectly relevant to determine what is considered criminal and impeachable under the law. Congress just held a hearing with legal experts to discuss such things.Unless the Question is About Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, and Burisma it's a fictional question. That situation is the only situation where Ukraine was pressured and Extorted to do something and they in fact DID the very thing DEMANDED of them by JOE BIDEN and he OPENLY Bragged about HIS CRIME.whats fiction about it? I’m asking what would be considered criminal or not. I’m not making the case that Trump did all that.Your question comrade is fiction. How about basing a question on facts and evidence.Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed
No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.
No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley
The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'
Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!
'Yes' or 'no' because YOU say so...sorta like a mandatory 'yes' or 'no' answer to the BS question, 'Are you still beating your spouse?'Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.
I ask yes or no because every time I ask that question people squirm away like you and Tree both just did. But since you brought up Turley... he actually said that if the accusations were proven true and Trump did in fact leverage aid for political purposes then it would constitute an impeachable act. He said it plain and clear in his opening statement. Do you agree with him about that?'Yes' or 'no' because YOU say so...sorta like a mandatory 'yes' or 'no' answer to the BS question, 'Are you still beating your spouse?'Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.
Democrat Constitutional Scholar Turley testified that - as the Democrats showed and we all saw - the President did not commit any crimes or abuse his Constitutional authority: no crime, no evidence of crime, no witnesses, Democrat 'witnesses' asked directly to name a crime or a High Crime and Misdemeanor could NOT...but did testify that the Bidens should be investigated....one huge cluster-f* FAIL by Democrats....
....as opposed to former VP Biden's videotaped confession of extorting the former Ukraine PM.
.
I ask yes or no because....
I ask yes or no because....
You ask self-declared 'yes' or 'no' questions because your questions are non-reality-based snowflake BS meant to distract from the real facts.
Let's make this simple - you don't even have to give a personal response, just a link. I will show you mine - you show me yours.
Provide a video of President Trump giving a videotaped confession of extorting a Ukraine PM
Here's Biden's:
YOUR TURN.....
.
Allow me to respond by asking a clarifying question... let’s get on the same page as to what we consider a crime.... if a president were to use the power of his office to leverage a foreign country to take actions intended to help the president on a purely political level... would you consider that a crime and or an impeachable offense? That’s a yes or no question.Agreed!The hearings very clearly showed what the agenda was.
No crime proven.
-- Schiff's own 'witnesses' could NOT name 1 crime, 1 'High Crime and Misdemeanor' committed
No evidence of any crime or abuse of power.
- Everything presented was HEARSAY, rumor, assumption, and opinion. NO 1st-hand account / information.
No Witnesses, No one who actually 'witnessed' anything
- Nadler did no better, managing only to scrounge up Liberal Extremist University professors with a proven past history of hating Trump, willing to go after his son, who could only give their OPINIONS, not actually cite the Constitution / a Constitutional Scholar like Turley
The Democrats made their agenda clear back in 2017 5 minutes after Trump took his oath of office - They publicly declared their mission of removing Trump from the WH. Freshman Dems like Tlaib ran on their mission to 'Impeach the SOB'
Schiif's and Nadler's TELEVISED self-imploding coup attempts just showed the world, as Turley testified, what the Democrats are doing is based on partisan hatred and a lust for power, 'dangerous' to our republic, and the only ones who have abused their power are he DEMOCRATS!
Once again, that's because your question is based on fantasy, something that has not happened, which snowflakes and Democrats love to focus on instead of what REALLY happened...like THIS:That’s twice now you’ve avoided answering my question
