The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[iceberg]

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

 

[Slade3200]

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

 

[progressive hunter]

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

 

[Slade3200]

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

 

[iceberg]

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

Give me the link to 1 fact that proves what you say about Trump's intent is correct.

I'm asking to leave emotions out so I get your confusion.

12x and still no smoking gun. Note from Trump. Recording of GET ME Dirt... Just "people said"

And you argue against people doing that to the Biden's.

Gonna go away now. If asking for a single fact confuses you we will never end this well.

Everything he's quoted as saying also fits crime investigation but I can't assume that. I must assume dirt.

No.

 

[progressive hunter]

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

 

[Slade3200]

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

 

[progressive hunter]

Yet what, 10 replies later you have said nothing more than "read the testimony".

Link me to 1 fact provided by any witness. Instead of doing that, we keep on and on. I am done. Provide the testimony, sentence, specific link, or don't. If you can't show me your "facts" , then what are they if not suppositions?

No more war and peace replies please. Just a quote from a witness providing facts, not opinions, that prove all this. Or some form f proof.

Not you and armchair legal experts "thinking" what was meant.

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

 

[Slade3200]

The witnesses testified to Trumps agenda. Hold funds to get Ukraine to announce investigations into the DNC and Biden. The famous quid pro quo. you want to see proof that Trump was after political dirt. I’m confused by your question. He wanted Ukraine to announce investigations into Biden and the DNC. You don’t contest that do you? How then is that simple fact not political dirt? What else would you think it is?

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

 

[iceberg]

thats a lie,,,they said the opposite and gave their biased opinion like you are,,,

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

 

[Slade3200]

The guy that actually said quid pro quo was a trump donor and buddy... his bias falls on trumps side. But he was under oath talking to congress and had already been caught covering for trump during the depositions. You don’t know what you are talking!

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

How so?

 

[iceberg]

youre one tell tell someone they dont know what theyre talking about,,,

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

How so?

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

 

[iceberg]

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

its funny and interesting to me that you can be so confident in something you know very very little about. You don’t know what Biden was hired to do, you don’t know what he did, you don’t know how he did it, yet you presume to know it all based on what I can only assume are conspiracy media reports.

I base all of that on reporting done by Reuters...the New York Times...Politifact...and the Wall Street Journal, Slade. Did you want to call any of them "conspiracy media"?

It's rather obvious what Hunter Biden DID for Burisma! He got paid a lot of money for them to use his name.
Firm Hired by Ukraine’s Burisma Tried to Use Hunter Biden as Leverage, Documents Show

I've read many articles that said bursima bought influence. It was a goal.

 

[Slade3200]

Ouch, you got me there! Notice you didn’t counter any of my points though. Weak

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

How so?

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Whether you're being "fair" doesn't seem relevant to you? Really? Interesting thing to admit, Slade...

Yep. He can assume Trump is guilty.

But don't assume Biden was just a name in a do nothing job.

 

[iceberg]

because theyve already been proven wrong,,,

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

How so?

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

 

[Slade3200]

really?! Did Sondland not donate to Trump and then get appointed, did he not have to change is testimony which gave cover for Trump after being deposed? Are you denying that he is a trump ally? Did he not say that there was a Quid Pro Quo?

prove any one of those statements false. I dare you.

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

How so?

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

 

[iceberg]

See what I mean? There you go demanding what you don't provide.

How so?

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

 

[Lysistrata]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

The trumpsters are trying to find some way to involve the Bidens in this, but it just isn't there. They are just blowing something out of their asses. How would the orange whore even know anything about either Biden and the Ukraine to ask them specifically, by name, to be investigated with a big public show, after firing our ambassador for no reason? We know that the orange whore sucks whatever putin wants him to, this scheme is a good way to take the heat off of putin and the russians and put it on their enemy, Ukraine, and go after a political enemy. The orange whore's concern about "corruption" is a total fraud.

 

[Slade3200]

How so?

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?