Markk wrote:Do you honestly believe that there is not enough evidence against the Biden's to raise a concern, have you hnestly looked at all the evidence?
There is none presented. Just the usual nonsense from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rudy Giuliani and John Solomon. You expect Congress to approve funding for investigations every time some conspiracy theorist group on the internet starts "connecting dots" with faulty inferences, innuendo and hyperbole?
"One of the hardest things for me to accept is the fact that Kevin Graham has blonde hair, blue eyes and an English last name. This ugly truth blows any arguments one might have for actual white supremacism out of the water. He's truly a disgrace." - Ajax
EAllusion wrote:I believe Markk's reasoning is that there wasn't sufficient evidence to trigger a DoJ investigation (which can be a laughably low bar) but Trump was justified on the evidence he had to try to circumvent US standards of justice by working with a nation's political system he believed to be corrupt by using organized crime connections as a go-between to manufacture a situation in which he would violate US law to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation into Joe Biden, undermine Russian culpability for 2016 election espionage, and nothing else.
No, my assertion is that there was/s solely enough evidence for the President to ask for an investigation. Asking the Ukraine to investigate corruption is well withing his right, and there is even precipice for a president to do this against a political opponent.
There is also enough evidence for the DoJ, and for any agency to want an investigation...if this was the Trump family and not the Biden's are you going to honestly sit here and tell me you would not be saying there was enough evidence?
It will be a interesting 5 years if Trump get elected again...and it will be interesting after 5 years to go back and read the post here over those 8 years of his presidency.
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Markk wrote:Do you honestly believe that there is not enough evidence against the Biden's to raise a concern, have you hnestly looked at all the evidence?
There is none presented. Just the usual nonsense from the likes of Glenn Beck, Rudy Giuliani and John Solomon. You expect Congress to approve funding for investigations every time some conspiracy theorist group on the internet starts "connecting dots" with faulty inferences, innuendo and hyperbole?
I have presented a lot of it here...just saying uh ah is a cop out.
Generally...The VP's son and associates, were paid millions for very suspicious folks for no real reason other than his fathers name, while his father was in charge of Billions going to these two countries.
Have you actually read and gone through the accusations/evidences?
Don't take life so seriously in that " sooner or later we are just old men in funny clothes" "Tom 'T-Bone' Wolk"
Markk wrote:...canpakes conceded that the answer that you guys were fishing for was "given the lack of any real evidence indicating corruption.." Yet my answer was always, because he did not need as President, and that he did indeed feel their was ample evidence.
So after all this, it was not that I did not answer the question, I just did not answer it the way you folks wanted me to answer it...LOL ...
I think the ‘concede’ part is still squarely in your lap considering that you haven’t answered the question at all, and are still attempting to dodge it.
To refresh your memory:
Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate the Bidens?
Your answer simply states that Trump believed something, but does not address why he did not act on that belief.
My answer gives a good reason as to why Trump would not act on that belief.
The question concerns why Trump did not act on his supposed belief in this conspiracy theory.
I am absolutely not being misled. President Trump's legal team and the Republican party argued against evidence, witness testimonies, and documents from being shared during the Senate impeachment trial let's us review what we learned during the House impeachment hearings.
The President's abuse of power was described throughout the impeachment hearings:
- President Trump attempted to extort Ukraine through the establishment of an unofficial diplomatic line, through the President's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, to carry out the President's domestic political errand while diverging from official U.S. policy in Ukraine. -
That’s indisputable.
- The President abused his power. -
That’s indisputable.
A quick recap of testimonies is clearly in order:
David Holmes testified the importance of a White House meeting for newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky and President Trump extorting Ukraine by withholding aid while asking Zelensky to publicly announce an investigation into Biden on CNN.
Department of Defense official Laura Cooper testified that Ukrainian officials inquired about the withheld aid on the same day as the Trump-Zelensky call.
Dr. Fiona Hill's debunked the Ukrainian election interference conspiracy theory pushed by President Trump, stating that "this is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves." She outlined how a parallel diplomatic line was established by President Trump as he had Ambassador Sondland and Giuliani carry out a domestic political errand, diverging from official U.S. policy in Ukraine. Ranking Member Nunes cut off the questioning as the answers were damaging to Trump.
Ambassador Sondland testified that a quid pro quo deal was ordered by President Trump.
I mean I can keep going, but the smoothbrains here just aren’t interested in facts. So, unless specifically asked a question I’m wrapping up this post.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Cool. You just keep posting things in different ways. They mean different things post to post.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40
Markk wrote: I have presented a lot of it here...just saying uh ah is a cop out.
Generally...The VP's son and associates, were paid millions for very suspicious folks for no real reason other than his fathers name, while his father was in charge of Billions going to these two countries.
Have you actually read and gone through the accusations/evidences?
You keep saying you present evidence but your claims are all over the place as are your links, most of which don't even support the point you think you're making. They're spread out over more than a dozen pages on this thread and for every specific point I refute you completely ignore the response. Like your repeated suggestion that simply getting paid money to be on a BOD for having a celebrity name means you're part of some massive corruption scheme or like a member of a mob. It has been demonstrated time and time again that this is NORMAL, and more so among the children of the people (Trump & Giuliani) attacking the Bidens.
Where is your evidence that the Bidens got paid "millions" by Ukraine? Joe Biden wasn't responsible for money going to Ukraine or China, Congress was. He withheld money once but it was with Congress' knowledge. Your suggestion that he's just sitting around with billions to pass out to the highest bidder is just sheer lunacy. And the fact that you keep repeating John Solomon and Rudy Giuliani proves you're just not a serious person. You're here to troll and waste everyone's time while destroying an otherwise informative thread.
Last edited by Guest on Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"One of the hardest things for me to accept is the fact that Kevin Graham has blonde hair, blue eyes and an English last name. This ugly truth blows any arguments one might have for actual white supremacism out of the water. He's truly a disgrace." - Ajax
You’re an amoral relativist who supports a clearly dangerous and corrupt demogogue. Whatevs.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
Irony. Wasn't it you complaining about the other side not reading your posts?
Jesus Christ man. Nuance thinking is hard for you isn't it?
I believe in God. I believe the culture and world has left God and is relativist. That doesn't mean describing it makes me so. But good dialogue man. Name calling. Always stimulating and interesting.
It is also weird that in my last posts to you and E I was the one arguing the plain matter of fact law. And you call me a relativist. Weird.
mikwut
All communication relies, to a noticeable extent on evoking knowledge that we cannot tell, all our knowledge of mental processes, like feelings or conscious intellectual activities, is based on a knowledge which we cannot tell. -Michael Polanyi
"Why are you afraid, have you still no faith?" Mark 4:40