Time to stick a fork in it already.

So far none of the witnesses have provided evidence for the dem clown show narrative.

 

Stop pretending like you are some sort of authority that is in a position to objectively determine anything. You are nothing more than one of the more over the top partisans that grace this board. Own it.

Your belief to the contrary is nothing short of delusional.

 

Despite three years of you and others prattling about it I've seen no actual evidence (just speculation and opinion) that Putin favors Donald Trump in any way. In fact it would seem unlikely as President Trump has advanced several policies diametrically opposed to Russian geopolitical interests.

 

I'm not the one who brought up Hillary Clinton. You did. You posted it. Own it.

 

I second the motion....

What are they waiting for?

Do we need to hear more from Congresswoman Stefanik about how the Obama Administration actually prepared Yovanovitch before she was confirmed on how to avoid and deflect the Burisma and Biden conflict of interests?

 

You mean you don't believe the unanimous assessment of our intel agencies, or Mueller, either? Not surprised.

 

I'm simply observing your lack of a counter factual argument.................and your denial of facts in evidence as a substitute for it.

 

Stop pretending like you are some sort of authority that is in a position to objectively determine anything. You are nothing more than one of the more over the top partisans that grace this board. Own it.

Your belief to the contrary is nothing short of delusional.

 

He specifically said so at a press conference with a fawning Bonespurs standing next to him.

You whine constantly about "evidence", but you have refused to read the Mueller Report which established that the Russians favored Bonespurs and worked to get him elected, and you seem to forget events like I've pointed out above.

Educate yourself.

 

Are you going to post any facts supported by logic and reason to counter his arguments?

 

I already have. I suggest you go back and read our rather lengthy conversation in this fairly short thread. If you'd like to respond to something that I have said while forming that argument, I eagerly invite you to do so.

 

I'm simply observing your lack of a counter factual argument.................and your denial of facts in evidence as a substitute for it.

 

Stop pretending like you are some sort of authority that is in a position to objectively determine anything. You are nothing more than one of the more over the top partisans that grace this board. Own it.

Your belief to the contrary is nothing short of delusional.

 

This one?

There's nothing in that post. There are no facts, no logic--it's your opinion about what a "waste" of time the impeachment inquiry is, but you don't explain why. You simply make the assumption that it's a waste of time.

 

Sorry, never said that. Though I did point out with some regularity the evidence of Don's guilt as it became publicly known. Mueller's report contained much of that evidence. Evidence that would have lead to Don's indictment of obstruction of justice if not for the OLC prohibition against indicting a sitting prez.

 

You can't be referring to this string of unrelated nonsense.

 

Can't be this post.

 

Thanks for proving "the counter factual argument the Repubs can offer is non-existent."

 

So, which post is chock full of facts and logic?

Point it out.

 

But there is mounting evidence that Obama even helped Putin out with supplying pipeline equipment for the Crimea.

Putin sure was stupid if he thought that Trump would be easier to manipulate.

 

"A former White House national security official told House investigators that Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, was acting at President Trump’s behest and spoke to a top Ukrainian official about exchanging military aid for political investigations — two elements at the heart of the impeachment inquiry.

Tim Morrison, the top Russia and Europe adviser on the National Security Council, testified that between July 16 and Sept. 11, he understood that Sondland had spoken to Trump about half a dozen times, according to a transcript of his sworn Oct. 31 deposition released by House committees Saturday. Trump has said he does not know Sondland well and has tried to distance himself from the E.U. ambassador, whom Trump put in charge of Ukraine policy along with two others, even though Ukraine is not part of the European Union."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...88d768-08b9-11ea-8ac0-0810ed197c7e_story.html

 

Of course a bunch of partisan _________ are going to give lip service to the narrative.

While the actual evidence points to the diametric opposite. The Koch-Glitsch Italia deal provides more than ample proof of it.

 

What that constitutes is a summation of how each side views this situation. It is literally much ado about nothing. Now if you want to discuss the absolute facts of the case, I can happily do that as well.

You have this over riding belief that this is about 2020. A credible argument can be made that it is so. The problem that you have is that there is an equally credible argument that this was about 2016 and the political corruption that existed at that time. In case you aren't aware, while Joe Biden may potentially be a 2020 opponent, he CLEARLY was a prominent member of the past administration, whom happens to currently be under investigation by the sitting Attorney General. The end result is that you have a suspicion that is literally impossible to prove, or certainly up to this point it is far short of being proven. For the record my guess would be that it is probably in reality a combination of the two. My belief would be that it is primarily about 2016, and anything that arose about Biden was definitely a bonus for Trump, but the only thing relevant is what can actually be proven.

When you look at those 2 very legitimate beliefs (An investigation into 2016, and an investigation into a future political opponent), the end result is VASTLY different. If it were about an investigation into 2016, asking an ally to whom we provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid, there is absolutely not one thing wrong with asking and expecting them to fully cooperate with a legitimate investigation being conducted by our justice department into interference in the 2016 election. If it were as you believe all about finding dirt on a potential upcoming political opponent, then that would present a potential problem, especially politically.

The problem for you is that the burden of proof lies with your side, and that burden of proof is not even remotely close to being proven. In fact, the chances that it would be proven are extremely low. Even if I were to put myself into your shoes and was going to automatically assume the absolute worst motive possible for Trump, the odds of it being proven are slim to none. A mob boss is typically not stupid enough to give orders that are clear, instead they are going to say something like "we need to address Luciano" rather than "Lou needs to go murder Luciano". The FBI may fully know that the boss ordered the hit, but it is nearly impossible to prove as much when all they have is him saying we need to address him. In the same vein, Republicans were convinced that Obama was in on the IRS scandal where Tea Party Groups were not being given tax exempt status, but even if guilty, the odds of ever finding a memo or link to Obama in that scandal were slim to none. The exact same principle applies here. You may be convinced of his guilt, just as Republicans are convinced of Obama's motives. Until either is conclusively proven, you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

You have no ability to irrefutably prove that this was not about the legitimate investigation into interference in the 2016 election which is a perfectly acceptable motive. Unless and until you can provide such irrefutable proof, you have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said on Thursday that the United States Ambassador Gordon Sondland did not link financial military assistance to a request for Ukraine to open up an investigation into former vice president and current Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. (Reuters)

 

It has to be "irrefutable"? Err, no.