Impeachment hearings

[Guest]

No I am asking from one of the people that asked me the same question, to tell me what they perceive is the correct answer in that they did not accept my answer to the question, by the way...cancakes gave me what he perceived was the correct answer, which was “because there was not enough evidence”...which is 180 to my answer that there was enough evidence so ,there was not need to Ask the DOJ.

There was enough evidence to get Ukraine to investigate so Trump didn't need to ask the DOJ to do it? That's your answer?

Trump: Ukraine is too corrupt to receive military aid
Also Trump: Corrupt Ukraine should conduct the investigation

Why not ask the DOJ?

If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?

Trump considered handing Michael McFaul over to Putin, which was bad enough, but a handing over a former VP to a foreign government?


There's a reason he didn't go to DOJ, it's glaringly obvious to (almost) everyone.

[_Markk]

Look at what you did here, Markk. Just look at how you "answered" his question. Are you proud of your total disconnect? Do you want me to go through your exchanges here and document your evasion? Your parroting of the phrases of others because you have no intellectual originality of your own?

No really, I'm going to be snowed in for the next 24 hours. I've got nothing but time to do it.

Or would you like to tell the class why you think Trump tried to squeeze an investigation and a salacious announcement about said investigation instead of using his own DOJ?

You've gone on for 12 pages dicking around wasting the ____ out of people's time and effort with you. How about barfing up a simple answer to a simple question?

You ought to be embarrassed of your poor showing here. I mean what on God's green earth is wrong with you?

Focus...in order to show me how I did not answer a question, the answer to the question has to be established and accepted...LOL Think Jersey Girl, but anyway knock yourself out...show me how I did not answer the mystery question?

[_Markk]

There was enough evidence to get Ukraine to investigate so Trump didn't need to ask the DOJ to do it? That's your answer?

Partly...LOL, remeber I had something like 15 pages of excuses, or something like that.

But yes, he had every right as President to ask another "president " to investigate what he saw as corruption. He was setting the table for the DoJ, and getting a possible investigation going...so yes that is my general answer. I have commented a lot on some of the specifics for why he felt their was corruption.

Tish wrote...If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?

HUH? They would supply information to the DOJ, so we could prosecute if the evidence was valid? That is just nonsense.

Tish wrote...Trump considered handing Michael McFaul over to Putin, which was bad enough, but a handing over a former VP to a foreign government?

Show me anything that remotely indicates Trump was going to hand Biden over to the Ukraine Goverment...that is nothing but conjecture.


But now we have two different answer to your question, so far cancakes makes the most sense of the two, lets see what Jersey Girl and Doc' reasons are?

[_Jersey Girl]

More BS by Markk...

Focus...in order to show me how I did not answer a question, the answer to the question has to be established and accepted...

An established and accepted answer? Are you mixing up an answer with a definition? No honey, the answer to the question needs to come from the person being asked. That'd be you, bub.

LOL Think Jersey Girl, but anyway knock yourself out...show me how I did not answer the mystery question?

Oh sure. No problem. Your non-answers are in bold text.

Page 59

why didn't Trump have the DOJ investigate the Bidens?

Because based on the clear evidence the Biden's /were/are dirty has heck in regards to the Ukraine and tax payer dollars...millions of dollars seem to have been funneled through the Bidens, with whom Biden was taking the lead on giving Billions of tax payer dollars to the Ukraine.

Page 60

Okay. So Why didn't Trump have the DOJ investigate the Bidens?

I have stated that he did not get the DoJ to do so, simply because he did not need to, he is with in his right to call out corruption.

Page 60

You say that he didn't get the DOJ to investigate simply because he did not need to.

If he didn't need the DOJ to investigate then why did he need to ask the Ukraine to investigate Biden and make a public announcement that they were doing so?

Because their is evidence that the Biden's are dirty, Hunter and others associated with him are getting millions for nothing, from a company owned by a "mobster" that is receipting taxpayer money from Joe Biden.


Page 62

If there is evidence that the Biden's are dirty why didn't he get the DOJ to investigate?

If he didn't need the DOJ to investigate then why did he need to ask the Ukraine to investigate Biden and make a public announcement that they were doing so?


Because as commander and chief, he wanted to know if americans, even the vice president and his son, were corrupt and skimming off the top taxpayer funds?

Page 65

If as Commander IN Chief (not and chief), he wanted to know if Americans, even the vice president and his son, were corrupt and skimming off the top taxpayer funds then why didn't he use his own DOJ to investigate?

LOL...go back and read the conversation...cancakes has already stated the why to the question, and where you guys were going with t...his answer was "because there was not enough evidence," while my assertion, and Trump's, was that there is.

Keep in mind those are just your exchanges with me and no other poster.

So. The question remains why did Trump go to the Ukraine and ask them to investigate Bidens and make an announcement that they were doing so instead of asking his own DOJ?

[_Jersey Girl]

But now we have two different answer to your question, so far cancakes makes the most sense of the two, lets see what Jersey Girl and Doc' reasons are?

That's not gonna happen until you answer the question that has been posed to you for what, 12/13 pages now ongoing.


Let's see, indeed.

[_Jersey Girl]

cancakes

Like I'm going to accept direction and insults from someone who can't even accurately reproduce a simple screen name when it's passed by his face hundreds of times.



You've done that repeatedly throughout the thread. Fix yourself.

[_Jersey Girl]

I love this crap.

cancakes has already stated the why to the question, and where you guys were going with t...his answer was "because there was not enough evidence," while my assertion, and Trump's, was that there is.

We guys weren't going anywhere with anything. There is no we guys.

There are individual posters on this thread trying to squeeze a simple answer out of you in response to a simple question. And, the vortex you create just continues to spin.

[_Jersey Girl]

Wait staff at IHOP: What would you like for lunch today?

Markk: What's the established and accepted answer to that question?

[_Markk]

So. The question remains why did Trump go to the Ukraine and ask them to investigate Bidens and make an announcement that they were doing so instead of asking his own DOJ?

Well, so far canpakes ( I got it right this time), even though he disagreed with it, as did Tish...so again my answer is "he did not need to, as president he has every right to ask another leader, or person, for evidence of corruption of a goverment official. See my last response to Tish...Please...

I can only ask you one more time to do your homework (that's a hint) and quite being a follower, repeating talking points, and maybe re-read your question and think about what you wrote. I am trying to help you out here Jersey Girl.

For review...

Canpakes answer to the question is ..."because there was no evidence"

Tish's answer to the question is ... ."If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?"

Markk's is...as President, he has every right to, and I would argue duty, to ask a person, in this case President Z., for evidence of goverment corruption.

So all we need now is your answer to the question, and hopefully Doc's.

[_Markk]

Wait staff at IHOP: What would you like for lunch today?

Markk: What's the established and accepted answer to that question?

We guys weren't going anywhere with anything. There is no we guys.

There are individual posters on this thread trying to squeeze a simple answer out of you in response to a simple question. And, the vortex you create just continues to spin.

LOL...what you guys drinking while you are snowed in?