US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[B. W.]

I think Ive figured out why the Dems are so upset. Ukraine was the ultimate money laundering scheme for the Democrat elites. It went something like this: Us taxpayers pay taxes/ Us government gives money to Ukraine "businesses"/ Ukraine businesses make Democrat elites like Biden wealthy/ Trump says wait a minute, lets find out what's going on/ Dems freak out.

[The spartan]

All roads lead to orange man bad.

Unlike: all roads lead to orange man can do no wrong?

I think Ive figured out why the Dems are so upset. Ukraine was the ultimate money laundering scheme for the Democrat elites. It went something like this: Us taxpayers pay taxes/ Us government gives money to Ukraine "businesses"/ Ukraine businesses make Democrat elites like Biden wealthy/ Trump says wait a minute, lets find out what's going on/ Dems freak out.

It's quite a skill to be able to string together so many words into sentences that don't actually convey ideas or concepts. I assumed only bots could do that.

[PointOfViewGun]

It's also rather hilarious to see people drowning in metaphorical try to throw at others and claim how they are. Republicans, through their defense of Trump, has no grounds whatsoever.

[Cope]

Unlike: all roads lead to orange man can do no wrong?

Yes. Unlike that.

[The spartan]

Yes. Unlike that.

Because, unlike "orange man is bad", "orange man can do no wrong" is actually true?

[Cope]

Because, unlike "orange man is bad", "orange man can do no wrong" is actually true?

More true is the way I'd phrase it.

[The spartan]

More true, is the way I'd phrase it.

Yes, I am sure you would be saying the same if he had actually shot that guy on 5th Ave.

I gotta say, there is a certain savvy in this kind of political pragmatism. It kinda forgoes long-term consequences, though, if you ask me.

[Cope]

Yes, I am sure you would be saying the same if he had actually shot that guy on 5th Ave.

That would depend on who he shot.

I gotta say, there is a certain savvy in this kind of political pragmatism.

Shocking degeneracy!

[The spartan]

That would depend on who he shot.

Don't worry, nobody important to your immediate political goals, so what does it matter?

Shocking degeneracy!

I wonder if you ever worry that every extra inch you give to Trump is something you can never use again against Democrats. Perhaps you're not expecting a Dem to ever be POTUS again?

[Cope]

Don't worry, nobody important to your immediate political goals, so what does it matter?

This story is sounding increasingly suspicious: why would Trump shoot someone unimportant?

I wonder if you ever worry that every extra inch you give to Trump is something you can never use again against Democrats. Perhaps you're not expecting a Dem to ever be POTUS again?

I don't worry. You just told me not to.

[Heathen Hammer]

Pelosi is kinda like a poorly trained house cat that begs to go outside (has her chamber vote on impeachment) and that refuses once the door is opened (not sending it to senate).

[The spartan]

This story is sounding increasingly suspicious: why would Trump shoot someone unimportant?

Pretty sure I said "nobody important to your immediate political goals", so could be a lot of people; from Trumps opponents to random single mothers. As to Trump's reason why to shoot them, I don't think he takes any lines of thought further than "I want to".

I don't worry. You just told me not to.

It's almost like people can worry about separate things. Almost.

Maybe you are just counting on "the race" ending soon.

[Coughdrop addict]

I wonder if you ever worry that every extra inch you give to Trump is something you can never use again against Democrats. Perhaps you're not expecting a Dem to ever be POTUS again?

Most of his supporters literally think that there never will be a Democrat president again. They will tell you Trump has utterly destroyed the party. Meanwhile the Republican elite is planning to use gerrymandering, voter suppression, election fraud, and whatever help they can get from Russia to make sure it can never happen, with the eventual goal of turning the US into a Russian-style mafia state.

[Cope]

Pretty sure I said "nobody important to your immediate political goals", so could be a lot of people; from Trumps opponents to random single mothers. As to Trump's reason why to shoot them, I don't think he takes any lines of thought further than "I want to".

Random single mothers are extremely important to my immediate political goals though.

It's almost like people can worry about separate things. Almost.

Maybe you are just counting on "the race" ending soon.

What race?

[Heathen Hammer]

Most of his supporters literally think that there never will be a Democrat president again.

Democrats are going out of their way to make this happen.

They will tell you Trump has utterly destroyed the party. Meanwhile the Republican elite is planning to use gerrymandering, voter suppression, election fraud, and whatever help they can get from Russia to make sure it can never happen, with the eventual goal of turning the US into a Russian-style mafia state.

Um, source?

[The spartan]

Random single mothers are extremely important to my immediate political goals though.

More important than Trump sticking it to the libs? Gonna slam the X button on that one.

What race?

Riiiiggghhhhttt

[Cope]

More important than Trump sticking it to the libs? Gonna slam the X button on that one.

Nothing could be more important than that.

Riiiiggghhhhttt

?

[Love Mountain]

If only you had Googled harder.

If only you did.

No one offered any evidence which challenged the contents of the transcript and no one cares that you want to see an "insidious motive".

The transcript does not exonerate the President. If nobody cared about "insidious motives", then there would be no impeachment.

What is the burden of proof?

?

[Cope]

If only you did.

Congratulations you can paste an image.

The law specifically states that "a statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity." The exclusions are separate and are provided for in 803.

Now you can either accept the law (I even went out of my way to offer you are link) or you can persist in your usual blind denialism.

The transcript does not exonerate the President. If nobody cared about "insidious motives", then there would be no impeachment.

1. The transcript doesn't have to "exonerate" Trump.

2. The so-called "insidious motive" is what you want to see, not what can be shown.

?

You demanded that I show Trump's innocence as if the burden of proof should be on the accused. It isn't. That's another area of justice with which you seem unfamiliar.

[Love Mountain]

Congratulations you can paste an image.

The law specifically states that "a statement is not hearsay if the statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity." The exclusions are separate and are provided for in 803.

Now you can either accept the law (I even went out of my way to offer you are link) or you can persist in your usual blind denialism.

I already offered you the link as well, half a dozen posts ago. The law goes out of the way to specify what is and isn't hearsay, precisely because it otherwise would be. If you want to pretend otherwise, fine. Like I said, irrelevant. I mean its cute that you're talking about "blind denialism". You continue to deny Trump's wrongdoing and construct pointless theories about the impeachment and its participants. Again, Schiff lying about the whistleblower and how they got the complaint. "Very relevant"

1. The transcript doesn't have to "exonerate" Trump.

2. The so-called "insidious motive" is what you want to see, not what can be shown.

1. Then your previous point is irrelevant.

2. Motive in general cannot be "seen". It's inside the head of the perpetrator. The only thing that can be done, is to prove that a motive is plausible or very likely. Trump's motives behind withholding of Ukrainian aid have been beyond obvious.

You demanded that I show Trump's innocence as if the burden of proof should be on the accused. It isn't. That's another area of justice with which you seem unfamiliar.

I'm not demanding you show it or prove it. I'm asking you to show me evidence to the contrary. For the entire impeachment, Trump's explanations for his conduct have been deconstructed or down to "I had reasonable motives to pursue Biden's corruption and Ukrainegate" because what? He hasn't shown any evidence to suggest that his actions are driven by something, he hasn't shown any evidence that would support his claimed motive.