Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

I will point out to you that the reason why air might or might not be in a basketball will never be some variation of, “Because it didn’t have to have air..!!1!”. Heck, it’s not really even “so it can bounce”, but at least you think you’re giving a reason there. Bless you.

LOL... it shows you did not read it the first time I wrote it...the context is, like your question, it is a joke of a question that you can't really articulate on.

I can totally “articulate on” that question, in contrast to your inability to answer mine. : )

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate the Bidens?

[_Markk]

Man.

I haven't looked at this thread in a while... I don't even remember where I left off. I just decided to click the last page to see where the conversation went, and it's all about Biden. In a thread about Trump's impeachment hearing, people are talking about Biden... for ____'s sake.

If this isn't a perfect microcosm of the problem with US politics, I don't know what is. Some Americans are just ____ dumb as ____.

Did you read the impeachment articles and the whistle blower account?...Trump was accused of soliciting The Ukraine to Investigate Biden, is article 1 (A), and the Whistle blower mentioned the Biden's several times in his complaint.

Are you saying that this part of the impeachment should be ignored?

Again, did you read the article and complaint? Did you watch any of the trial/s?

[_Markk]

I can totally “articulate on” that question, in contrast to your inability to answer mine. : )

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate the Bidens?

Here, I articulated on my answer...please articulate on yours...this will be good...


Because he did not need to? (rhetorical), as I wrote in the beginning of this circle, "why is there air in a basketball?" It is equally a stupid but obvious question with a equally obvious answer. There is air in a basketball so it can bounce, and Trump did not ask the DoJ, becasue he did not have to, he is President and it is his job to make sure we, our country, are not giving money away to a corrupt Ukraine, and he acted accordingly, legally, and has been acquitted for any wrong doing, as accused by his politically enemies.

He had Rudy looking into the corruption before Biden announced his run for President. He then asked the President (Z.) of the Ukraine, in a transcribed phone call, who FYI, was recently elected by the the Ukrainian people to root out the corruption (see Sondland testimony) that had taken place under the Biden and Obama watch. Trump then asked Z. to look into it on "our " behalf, and told President Z. that both Rudy and the DoJ would look into it more, as the whistle blower testified. And as you are most likely unaware of (or refuse to acknowledge), today, the DoJ and others are looking into the corruption that occurred under Obama's and Biden's watch, which President Trump took the lead on, per his legal right.

In other words he did his job, and has no legal or constitutional requirement to ask the DOJ to first look into goverment corruption, but he did anyway after setting the table. There are other likely reasons I did not discuss much, like inheriting a "Washington" that has more leaks than Swiss cheese has holes. He obviously trusted Rudy enough to start the ball rolling, who is obviously more than qualified as a prosecutor...that is not even debatable given his record.

I understand you don't like my answer. I understand you can't refute my answer with factual evidence, logic or reason. I understand you can't defend and expound on your answer to your own question...but maybe you will go for it sooner than later.

[_canpakes]

Man.

I haven't looked at this thread in a while... I don't even remember where I left off. I just decided to click the last page to see where the conversation went, and it's all about Biden. In a thread about Trump's impeachment hearing, people are talking about Biden... for “F”'s sake.

If this isn't a perfect microcosm of the problem with US politics, I don't know what is. Some Americans are just damned dumb as crap.

And all because Markk can’t wrap his head around the concept that there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about things, and Trump chose the latter. The impeachment was about Trump’s actions and no-one else’s.

This tweaks Markk’s brain. : D

[_Jersey Girl]

Here, I articulated on my answer...please articulate on yours...this will be good...

It'd be good if you could spit out a grammatically correct sentence.

[_Some Schmo]

And all because Markk can’t wrap his head around the concept that there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about things, and Trump chose the latter. The impeachment was about Trump’s actions and no-one else’s.

This tweaks Markk’s brain. : D

What's really insane about Markk's part in this conversation is the implicit expectation we take his concern over Biden's character seriously when he continuously goes to bat for the idiot President. I see no point in trying to reason with someone like that. You could drive the Titanic through a blind spot like that.

[_EAllusion]

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/20/us/p ... crats.html

Seems bad.

[_canpakes]

And all because Markk can’t wrap his head around the concept that there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about things, and Trump chose the latter. The impeachment was about Trump’s actions and no-one else’s.

This tweaks Markk’s brain. : D

What's really insane about Markk's part in this conversation is the implicit expectation we take his concern over Biden's character seriously when he continuously goes to bat for the idiot President. I see no point in trying to reason with someone like that. You could drive the Titanic through a blind spot like that.

His isn’t an honest concern. It’s purely a partisan distraction, especially given that Markk supports the candidate that is solidly behind, hires, shelters and then pardons actual corrupt players and convicts.

And he has been plainly shown how to actually explore the question of why Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate his bogus corruption targets. He won’t dare do that because he knows his manufactured concern is a sham and that the President’s claims are fake.

[_EAllusion]

Seems like it should be a big deal when a recent director of the CIA asserts this?

https://Twitter.com/JohnBrennan/status/ ... 3254333440

It's very odd to have coverage of the Democratic primary follow a familiar election coverage process while there's an endless string of warning signs that democracy is under serious threat of being dismantled in the meantime.

[_Markk]

And all because Markk can’t wrap his head around the concept that there’s a right way and a wrong way to go about things, and Trump chose the latter. The impeachment was about Trump’s actions and no-one else’s.

This tweaks Markk’s brain. : D

The Impeachment was about folks on the left, not accepting his presidency, period. They have no plan, no real candidates that can excite other than a hybrid communist, that they don't even want...and to my point they have no answer for Trump other than to go after him. That is their plan. Did you watch any of the debate? The left at this point is hapless and looks like a SNL skit, all Michaels has to do is play Amy asking Pete " do you think I am dumb" and call it a wrap. They should focus on getting that straightened out, instead of going after Trump...but, the way they will "straighten it out" in the next debate will be to go after Trump, because the have no plan or candidate that can both excite and not be a progressive socialist, that they ( the status quo swamp) can get behind.

Trump did nothing unlawful, he did the same thing that Obama did with Biden, in regards to having a non DOJ "person" investigate something, and as many presidents have done before.


Your question was circular and shallow, and not thought out, because you just parroted Tish, who was mot likely taking it another direction. You refuse to acknowledge the facts...and you refuse to expound and articulate on anything you wrote. You ducked most every question I asked you.

Now you seem to have never read the articles of impeachment , especially article 1(A) where Biden is a key figure in the accusation, and also not read the whistle blower complaint that reads the Biden's were central figures. Are you really going to parrot that his involvement is not part of all this as Schmo whined about?

What is telling about this thread is that many here are what I will now call "Burger King clones"...you just "want it your way", without any objectivity. I am not asking you to agree with my point of view, but at least expound on your point of view beyond the typical talking points, and concede there is a viable counter point of view.

A President has every right to have folks other than the DoJ investigate corruption, again as Biden did for Obama (which you refuse to even slightly acknowledge and discuss). Joe was either investigating and acting on the corruption there, or he is guilty of most everything you are accusing Trump of...which is it Canpakes? (another question you won't answer if you have even read this far)

Please acknowledge or expound on Biden's quid pro quo, which is on tape, it is not even debatable? He was acting as both judge and jury against the Ukrainian prosecutor, threatening a foreign goverment with holding back congress approved monies, unless they did what he told them to do. And he admitted that they bowed to his threat. That is by definition a quid pro quo.

What he told them to do was fire a prosecutor that was involved in an investigation of a company that was without any doubts corrupt. That his son was an attorney for. If the reason was valid or not is not really a question, what the question is "does it raise enough concern for a investigation? " And as we know the answer is yes it does, and the DoJ is currently investigating it.

When you are ready to defend or expound beyond the talking points you parrot, let me know.