Impeachment hearings

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'll just answer the question.

He knew using the DoJ to investigate the Bidens was wrong, and politically a non-starter. He knew this because he knew he had nothing. So used his personal lawyer, two goons, and leaned on Ukrainian officials to open an investigation holding Congressionally approved military aid as a bargaining chip.

That's it.

It's just so laughably stupid because Biden was a weak candidate, and he's not getting close to even whiffing the nomination.

damned Trump, and his idiot base.

- Doc

[_Markk]

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

LOL ask Doc... viewtopic.php?p=1217034#p1217034 Like Bill Cosby's "why is there Air " question, it is a stupid question and a Joke...he is even making fun of your question and inability to expound on anything, it is tiresome...but cutting and pasting is easy.

Are you ready to answer some of my questions or are you just going to keep hiding behind the dumb question... "wHY. DIdN't. Trump Ask. The. DoJ. tO. iNvEsTigaTe. tHe. BidENs?"

[_Markk]

LOL! - Geez, aren't you just a big bundle of impotent frustrations, incoherent projection and insecurities...LOL! You are somehow a less informed LDSfaps but, hey, at least you both share the inability to process information that runs contrary to the imaginary bubble you choose to live in so at least you can fall back on your testimony that Trump is the one true president and you can comfortably ignore the anti-trumplican libruls and their anti-trump agendas. LOL!!!

Coming from a guy that tried to say that LA skid row was only a block or so, and that homelessness was not really an issue there, how is that working out for you? Watched the news lately...LOL!

But you can actually jump in and offer anything beyond ad homs...at least Canpakes try's. It's ironic you say I am in a bubble yet you offer nothing, why, because you have nothing to offer.

Carry on

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Markk,

I typed it that way because it's just become a clown world circus question at this point, precisely because you're incapable of giving an honest answer, but instead choose to types pages and pages of nonsense and unrelated topics that you and anyone reading this thread, know is intended to obfuscate the point. In fact, even typing this out is tiresome because I know when or if you respond it'll just be more retarded BS because you're an attention whore and idiot. When you un-fuck yourself perhaps the discerning reader will be willing to engage you seriously moving forward, but for now you're just a total and complete waste of time. Congrats.

- Doc

[Guest]

I'll just answer the question.

He knew using the DoJ to investigate the Bidens was wrong, and politically a non-starter. He knew this because he knew he had nothing. So used his personal lawyer, two goons, and leaned on Ukrainian officials to open an investigation holding Congressionally approved military aid as a bargaining chip.

That's it.

It's just so laughably stupid because Biden was a weak candidate, and he's not getting close to even whiffing the nomination.

____ Trump, and his idiot base.

- Doc

What's funny is that after all this, your answer shows no crime, even if that is the truth. You chose your words carefully which shows you know this. Biden was not even a candidate when Rudy started the investigation.

If it were nit to be a crime in my opinion, Biden would need to be clean is all this and not be in a position to warrant an investigation, which the facts show other wise. .

But if you can... go ahead and answer some of my questions I have been asking about Biden...if you want me to I can ask them again. Let me know?

What is even more funny, I believe that nationally, Biden is still the #2 candidate behind Bernie.

[Guest]

Markk,

I typed it that way because it's just become a clown world circus question at this point, precisely because you're incapable of giving an honest answer, but instead choose to types pages and pages of nonsense and unrelated topics that you and anyone reading this thread, know is intended to obfuscate the point. In fact, even typing this out is tiresome because I know when or if you respond it'll just be more r____ ____ because you're an attention whore and idiot. When you ____ yourself perhaps the discerning reader will be willing to engage you seriously moving forward, but for now you're just a total and complete waste of time. Congrats.

- Doc

LOL...Suuurrre!

But see my last post. You are more than welcome to actually engage and expound on what is written instead of just whining and hiding behind ad homs.

It was a clown world question, from the beginning, and I stated it was a stupid question...but I answered it the best I can anyway. Canpakes and Jersey Girl parroted it from Tish and made it something bigger than it was, out of complete ignorance that it was a "clown question." So in that sense you are 100% correct.

Can we agree after cutting through the crap and nonsense, that if there is enough evidence to investigate the Biden's, then Trump was justified?

[_EAllusion]

Markk you say that Trump pushed for "investigation" of Biden before he announced his Presidential bid as if that was exculpatory. Biden was widely expected to announce his Presidential bid well before he did so, and was shadow-running months before his announcement. This is how the modern primary process often works. Because he was widely expected to announce, he was included in head-to-head polling against Trump where he performed the best of any Democrat. The idea that Trump had no reason to see Biden as a political opponent because he hadn't announced yet is either very dishonest or very stupid. Which category do you fall into?

[_Markk]

Then you need to prove somehow, the Biden's weren't worthy of an investigation. This was one of Alan Dershowitz' points. Even if Biden was a candidate at the time (which he wasn't so there is no "crime," speculation is irrelevant in this case ), and dirty, and even if Trump benefited from this politically, it is still justified. If I remember correctly he used Jefferson/Burr, and Nixon and someone else as precedence.

Was Hunter, and his business partners, doing business and being paid monies by a corrupt Ukrainian company, while Joe was VP and handing out Billions to the Ukraine, worthy of an investigation? That is a question no one here will touch, that I have asked umpteen times.

[_EAllusion]

Even if Biden was a candidate at the time (which he wasn't so there is no "crime," speculation is irrelevant in this case )

There's no statue providing guidance here that makes a distinction between whether someone has had a press conference to formally announce their candidacy or not. The principle at work is that it is wrong to pressure foreign governments to provide in-kind campaign assistance by harming political opponents, and it is especially wrong when that pressure comes in the form of withholding lawfully appropriated military aid. Joe Biden was reasonably understood to be a political opponent by anyone with a pulse when Trump did what he did. Pointing out he hadn't formally announced yet as a piece of exculpatory information is an attempt to mislead rubes like yourself. It's irrelevant, yet you are parroting that talking point verbatim.

One of the interesting side effects of this is you've managed to talk yourself into the position that so long as a candidate hasn't formally announced, the President is free to weaponize foreign influence to kill their candidacy in the crib and prevent them from becoming a opposition candidate. You are being made into an apologist for despots while you trip over yourself to defend a bad point.

[Guest]

Aw, poor markkk, still butthurt that I made a fool of him in our previous interactions where I pointed out that he didn't (and still doesn't) even understand the difference between anecdote and data. I get that your insecurities require that you incoherently pound out unreadable word salads in response to every post made in your direction but please don't mistake this post as an interest to interact with you.

You have shown you are incapable of learning, or even reading and understanding what other people post so I don't really see any value in your idea of "conversation": Rambling, disjointedly, about whatever your shallow little imagination (and right wing media) has led you to believe all while ignoring any information that run contrary to the "testimony" you have developed living in your sad little bubble of make-believe conservatism. I don't have any illusion that you are capable of intelligently processing information - this seems to be a feature of much of Trump's base...