***** OFFICIAL TRUMP IMPEACHMENT THREAD *****

947,536 Views | 9220 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by Pizza
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
captkirk said:



No, just the ones you think are for me, as you stated
1. Trump claimed to have released an "exact transcript" of his call with Zelensky. The document says on its first page that it is "not a verbatim transcript." All witnesses that were on the call testified the transcript was substantially accurate though.

2. Trump claimed he did not ask for anything on the call. Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.

3. Trump claimed Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch "out of the blue" on the call. Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.

4. Trump claimed that "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.

5. Trump claimed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to Trump about the call and said, "That was the most innocent phone call that I've read." McConnell said he doesn't recall speaking to Trump about the call. His public statement on the call was far less effusive than Trump's description.

6. Trump claimed that the Washington Post made up fictional sources for its article on how Trump had allegedly tried to get Barr to hold a news conference saying Trump had broken no laws in the call. (There is no evidence that the Post invented sources. Other major news outlets, including CNN, quickly reported the same thing the Post did.

7. Trump claimed the whistleblower was "so wrong" The rough transcript and witness testimony have corroborated the substance of the WB's complaint.

8. Trump claimed the whistleblower, a second whistleblower and the first whistleblower's source have all "dissapeared" There is no evidence for this. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their complaints.

9. Trump claimed the whistleblower had "all second hand" information. While the whistleblower did get information about the call from other people, the whistleblower also had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," noted Michael Atkinson, the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community.

10. Trump claimed the whistleblower "said quid pro quo 8 times" The whistleblower did not even use the words "quid pro quo" in the complaintid those words.

11. Trump claimed the whistleblower "works with Biden." There is no evidence for this. The whistleblower's lawyers said their client has never worked for or advised a candidate, campaign or party; the lawyers said the whistleblower has come into contact with presidential candidates for both parties while working as a civil servant in the executive branch.

12. Trump claimed someone "changed the whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. The whistleblower rules were not changed.

13. Trump claimed Schiff committed an illegal act by delivering an exaggerated interpretation of Trump's July 25 call at a committee hearing. As dumb as Schiff was for doing this, the Constitution gives members of Congress immunity for comments they make at committee.

14. Trump claimed Schiff might have committed "treason" Treason has a specific constitutional definition that Schiff's actions do not come close to meeting.

15. Trump claimed Schiff made his comments beforeTrump released the rough transcript of the call, not expecting Trump to release it. Schiff spoke the day after Trump released the document.

16. Trump claimed Schiff might have been the WB source. This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call." ICIG Michael Atkinson would have uncovered this in his review.

17. Trump claimed Schiff might have picked the WB The whistleblower sought guidance from Schiff's committee before filing their complaint, but there is no evidence showing Schiff "picked" the whistleblower.

18. Trump claimed Schiff "will only release doctored transcripts" Schiff has already released multiple transcripts of testimony from closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings, and there was no sign that any of them had been "doctored." Witnesses and their lawyers were given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcripts prior to release, and Republicans who attended the testimony did not allege that any transcripts had been improperly altered.

19. Trump claimed Republicans were not allowed into the closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings. Republican members of the three committees holding the hearings were allowed into the room and to ask questions of witnesses. Republicans & Democrats who were not on the committees were barred from the room.

20. Trump claimed Republicans were not allowed to ask questions in the closed-door hearings. Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Democrats and Republicans alternated questioning.

21. Trump claimed nobody else has ever faced closed-door impeachment hearings. Both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment processes involved some closed-door hearings.

22. Trump claimed his opponents have committed illegal acts related to impeachment. Trump wasn't clear about who he was talking about, but there is no evidence of illegality by either the whistleblower or Democrats.

23. The people who have testified in the impeachment inquiry have had "no first hand knowledge" Various witnesses have had first hand knowledge of various components of the story.

24. Trump claimed Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, still says there was "no quid pro quo." Sondland revised his original testimony to effectively acknowledge his belief that there had been a quid pro quo.

25. Trump claimed unlike Democrats, former House Speaker Paul Ryan "would never issue a subpeona." Numerous Republican subpoenas were issued to the Obama administration during Ryan's tenure as speaker.

26. Trump claimed "many" of the people who had testified as of October 21 "were put there during Obama, during Clinton, during the Never Trump or Bush era." Just two of the nine people who had testified at that point had been appointed under Obama. The other seven were appointed by Trump or his appointees.

27. Trump claims Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter Biden, has "ripped off at least 2 countries for millions fo dollars" There is no evidence Joe Biden has profited from his son's business dealings abroad.

28. Trump claims a video of Joe Biden speaking in 2018 about his past dealings with Ukraine is evidence of "corruption". The video does not show corruption. It shows Biden talking about his effort, in accordance with President Obama's foreign policy to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor widely considered unwilling to fight corruption.

29. Trump claims there is a photo of Joe Biden playing golf with "the company boss" of Burisma, the Ukrainian company for which Hunter Biden sat on the board. Neither Burisma's owner nor chief executive is in the photo. The person Trump had identified as a "Ukraine gas exec" was Devon Archer another American board member at Burisma and a longtime business associate of Hunter Biden.

30. Trump claimed that golf photo contradicts Joe Biden's claim to have never met the gentleman. Joe Biden had not claimed to have never met Devon Archer.

31. Trump claims that Hunter Biden was under investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor who Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire. There is no public evidence that Hunter Biden was ever himself under investigation. The prosecutor's former deputy has said that the actual investigation, into the owner of Burisma, was dormant at the time of Joe Biden's pressure.

32. Trump claims Biden pressured Ukraine to take the prosecutor off the case. There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case. Rather, Biden, like the US government more broadly, tried to get the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired.

33. Trump claims before Joe Biden denied that he had spoken to Hunter Biden about Hunter's overseas business activities, Joe Biden had said he did speak about those business activities. Joe Biden had not said he did speak to Hunter Biden about those business activities. Hunter Biden said they had one brief conversation in which Joe Biden asked him if he knew what he was doing.

34. Trump claims Hunter Biden's acts were "illegal." Hunter Biden has acknowledged using "poor judgment" in accepting the seat on the Burisma board, but there is no evidence of illegality.

35. Trump claimed he "didn't delay" the military aid to Ukraine. His administration did delay the aid.

36. Trump claimed Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine that threatened to deny aid if the Ukrainians did not comply with their demands. The letter did not make a threat. The senators expressed concern about a New York Times report that Ukraine had, to avoid Trump's wrath, stopped cooperating with the Mueller investigation and frozen investigations into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The letter urged Ukraine to reverse course if the report was true.

37. Trump claimed President Barack Obama sent mere "pillows and sheets" in aid to Ukraine. Trump was correct that Obama refused to provide lethal military assistance, but Obama sent other military assistance: drones, armored Humvees, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies.

38. Trump claimed the US is the "only" country providing assistance to Ukraine, and "nobody else is there." European countries have provided billions in grants and loans to Ukraine since Russia's 2014 invasion.

39. Trump claimed cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike is primarily owned by someone from Ukraine. CrowdStrike is a publicly traded, US based company founded by an American citizen who was born in Russia.
1872walker
How long do you want to ignore this user?
40. Trump claimed the attendance at his inauguration was " yuge"

41. Trump says his hands are normal sized, even large.

Long Live Sully
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Would someone please post a spreadsheet of socks and their prior username?

All these CMs and LTs are confusing. I just can't keep them straight.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ClassOf17 said:

So did we ever find out what the impeachable offense is?
I think we are down to this:

Quote:

I don't think it was appropriate for Trump to involve himself in an investigation of his political opponent.
tsuag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ah the "laundry list" argument.....

0 x 39 still = 0


I truly understand there are A LOT of reasons you hate Trump, but in your opinion, please name the 1 (just 1, please) VERY BEST/MOST CONVINCING reason that Trump should be impeached.

If you are not able to come up with just 1, you have no real basis for your position..... Other than the fact that you just really hate him and think he's a bad person.
FriscoKid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
That list is ass my dude.
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:


He is getting all of this information directly from The Party of Regions, which is a pro-Russian party in Ukraine that advocates for Ukraine to be reintegrated into Russia.


Citation needed
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

captkirk said:



No, just the ones you think are for me, as you stated
1. Trump claimed to have released an "exact transcript" of his call with Zelensky. The document says on its first page that it is "not a verbatim transcript." All witnesses that were on the call testified the transcript was substantially accurate though.

2. Trump claimed he did not ask for anything on the call. Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.

3. Trump claimed Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch "out of the blue" on the call. Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.

4. Trump claimed that "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.

5. Trump claimed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to Trump about the call and said, "That was the most innocent phone call that I've read." McConnell said he doesn't recall speaking to Trump about the call. His public statement on the call was far less effusive than Trump's description.

6. Trump claimed that the Washington Post made up fictional sources for its article on how Trump had allegedly tried to get Barr to hold a news conference saying Trump had broken no laws in the call. (There is no evidence that the Post invented sources. Other major news outlets, including CNN, quickly reported the same thing the Post did.

7. Trump claimed the whistleblower was "so wrong" The rough transcript and witness testimony have corroborated the substance of the WB's complaint.

8. Trump claimed the whistleblower, a second whistleblower and the first whistleblower's source have all "dissapeared" There is no evidence for this. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their complaints.

9. Trump claimed the whistleblower had "all second hand" information. While the whistleblower did get information about the call from other people, the whistleblower also had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," noted Michael Atkinson, the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community.

10. Trump claimed the whistleblower "said quid pro quo 8 times" The whistleblower did not even use the words "quid pro quo" in the complaintid those words.

11. Trump claimed the whistleblower "works with Biden." There is no evidence for this. The whistleblower's lawyers said their client has never worked for or advised a candidate, campaign or party; the lawyers said the whistleblower has come into contact with presidential candidates for both parties while working as a civil servant in the executive branch.

12. Trump claimed someone "changed the whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. The whistleblower rules were not changed.

13. Trump claimed Schiff committed an illegal act by delivering an exaggerated interpretation of Trump's July 25 call at a committee hearing. As dumb as Schiff was for doing this, the Constitution gives members of Congress immunity for comments they make at committee.

14. Trump claimed Schiff might have committed "treason" Treason has a specific constitutional definition that Schiff's actions do not come close to meeting.

15. Trump claimed Schiff made his comments beforeTrump released the rough transcript of the call, not expecting Trump to release it. Schiff spoke the day after Trump released the document.

16. Trump claimed Schiff might have been the WB source. This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call." ICIG Michael Atkinson would have uncovered this in his review.

17. Trump claimed Schiff might have picked the WB The whistleblower sought guidance from Schiff's committee before filing their complaint, but there is no evidence showing Schiff "picked" the whistleblower.

18. Trump claimed Schiff "will only release doctored transcripts" Schiff has already released multiple transcripts of testimony from closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings, and there was no sign that any of them had been "doctored." Witnesses and their lawyers were given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcripts prior to release, and Republicans who attended the testimony did not allege that any transcripts had been improperly altered.

19. Trump claimed Republicans were not allowed into the closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings. Republican members of the three committees holding the hearings were allowed into the room and to ask questions of witnesses. Republicans & Democrats who were not on the committees were barred from the room.

20. Trump claimed Republicans were not allowed to ask questions in the closed-door hearings. Republicans were allowed to ask questions. Democrats and Republicans alternated questioning.

21. Trump claimed nobody else has ever faced closed-door impeachment hearings. Both the Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton impeachment processes involved some closed-door hearings.

22. Trump claimed his opponents have committed illegal acts related to impeachment. Trump wasn't clear about who he was talking about, but there is no evidence of illegality by either the whistleblower or Democrats.

23. The people who have testified in the impeachment inquiry have had "no first hand knowledge" Various witnesses have had first hand knowledge of various components of the story.

24. Trump claimed Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the European Union, still says there was "no quid pro quo." Sondland revised his original testimony to effectively acknowledge his belief that there had been a quid pro quo.

25. Trump claimed unlike Democrats, former House Speaker Paul Ryan "would never issue a subpeona." Numerous Republican subpoenas were issued to the Obama administration during Ryan's tenure as speaker.

26. Trump claimed "many" of the people who had testified as of October 21 "were put there during Obama, during Clinton, during the Never Trump or Bush era." Just two of the nine people who had testified at that point had been appointed under Obama. The other seven were appointed by Trump or his appointees.

27. Trump claims Joe Biden, along with his son Hunter Biden, has "ripped off at least 2 countries for millions fo dollars" There is no evidence Joe Biden has profited from his son's business dealings abroad.

28. Trump claims a video of Joe Biden speaking in 2018 about his past dealings with Ukraine is evidence of "corruption". The video does not show corruption. It shows Biden talking about his effort, in accordance with President Obama's foreign policy to pressure Ukraine into firing a prosecutor widely considered unwilling to fight corruption.

29. Trump claims there is a photo of Joe Biden playing golf with "the company boss" of Burisma, the Ukrainian company for which Hunter Biden sat on the board. Neither Burisma's owner nor chief executive is in the photo. The person Trump had identified as a "Ukraine gas exec" was Devon Archer another American board member at Burisma and a longtime business associate of Hunter Biden.

30. Trump claimed that golf photo contradicts Joe Biden's claim to have never met the gentleman. Joe Biden had not claimed to have never met Devon Archer.

31. Trump claims that Hunter Biden was under investigation by the Ukrainian prosecutor who Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire. There is no public evidence that Hunter Biden was ever himself under investigation. The prosecutor's former deputy has said that the actual investigation, into the owner of Burisma, was dormant at the time of Joe Biden's pressure.

32. Trump claims Biden pressured Ukraine to take the prosecutor off the case. There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case. Rather, Biden, like the US government more broadly, tried to get the prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, fired.

33. Trump claims before Joe Biden denied that he had spoken to Hunter Biden about Hunter's overseas business activities, Joe Biden had said he did speak about those business activities. Joe Biden had not said he did speak to Hunter Biden about those business activities. Hunter Biden said they had one brief conversation in which Joe Biden asked him if he knew what he was doing.

34. Trump claims Hunter Biden's acts were "illegal." Hunter Biden has acknowledged using "poor judgment" in accepting the seat on the Burisma board, but there is no evidence of illegality.

35. Trump claimed he "didn't delay" the military aid to Ukraine. His administration did delay the aid.

36. Trump claimed Democratic senators sent a letter to Ukraine that threatened to deny aid if the Ukrainians did not comply with their demands. The letter did not make a threat. The senators expressed concern about a New York Times report that Ukraine had, to avoid Trump's wrath, stopped cooperating with the Mueller investigation and frozen investigations into former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort. The letter urged Ukraine to reverse course if the report was true.

37. Trump claimed President Barack Obama sent mere "pillows and sheets" in aid to Ukraine. Trump was correct that Obama refused to provide lethal military assistance, but Obama sent other military assistance: drones, armored Humvees, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices and medical supplies.

38. Trump claimed the US is the "only" country providing assistance to Ukraine, and "nobody else is there." European countries have provided billions in grants and loans to Ukraine since Russia's 2014 invasion.

39. Trump claimed cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike is primarily owned by someone from Ukraine. CrowdStrike is a publicly traded, US based company founded by an American citizen who was born in Russia.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL What stupid spin. I'm out.

Many of these statements take something where Trump added a little spin, and then this list adds the same or more amount of spin in the other direction, and then calls the Trump statement a lie.

Out of these 39,none of them demonstrate an outright, if told under oath, perjury level lie. Certainly not up there with "I did not have sexual relations* with that woman" or the claim that Trump accepted a bribe* - [*as defined by lawyers representing the Democratic party]

If this can be categorized as a "lie" by Trump: Trump claimed that "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.

Then this also has to be a "lie" by the author of this list: Trump claimed someone "changed the whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. The whistleblower rules were not changed.

We all know that the intake form was changed to allow hearsay and second hand knowledge just before this thing blew open. To suggest that Trump told a lie about this situation is so misleading that it is itself a lie, especially by the standards that this list used to determine if a Trump statement was a lie.

I tell you what, if it is considered a "lie" for a politician to throw out an accusation about alleged wrongdoing without providing proof (e.g. #'s 6, 11, 16, 22), then the entire Democratic House's pants are on fire, as well as the author of this list.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:


He is getting all of this information directly from The Party of Regions, which is a pro-Russian party in Ukraine that advocates for Ukraine to be reintegrated into Russia.


Citation needed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment-marches-forward-washington/story?id=67519317



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrii_Derkach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Regions

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/sondland-testified-misleading-ukraine-story-spread-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511
tsuag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Does the source of his information make it less true?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy's information is false?

If "No", then we should probably see where this leads and let the facts present themselves.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL What stupid spin. I'm out.

Many of these statements take something where Trump added a little spin, and then this list adds the same or more amount of spin in the other direction, and then calls the Trump statement a lie.

Out of these 39,none of them demonstrate an outright, if told under oath, perjury level lie. Certainly not up there with "I did not have sexual relations* with that woman" or the claim that Trump accepted a bribe* - [*as defined by lawyers representing the Democratic party]

If this can be categorized as a "lie" by Trump: Trump claimed that "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.

Then this also has to be a "lie" by the author of this list: Trump claimed someone "changed the whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. The whistleblower rules were not changed.

We all know that the intake form was changed to allow hearsay and second hand knowledge just before this thing blew open. To suggest that Trump told a lie about this situation is so misleading that it is itself a lie, especially by the standards that this list used to determine if a Trump statement was a lie.

I tell you what, if it is considered a "lie" for a politician to throw out an accusation about alleged wrongdoing without providing proof (e.g. #'s 6, 11, 16, 22), then the entire Democratic House's pants are on fire, as well as the author of this list.
I was asked to provide a list of Trump lies surrounding this impeachment incident. A list has been provided. Please let me know if you would like any back up for any in particular.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tsuag10 said:

Does the source of his information make it less true?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy's information is false?

If "No", then we should probably see where this leads and let the facts present themselves.
Our Intelligence Community (mUH DeEp StAte) is telling us that this information is propaganda from Russia.

FriscoKid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

#32 There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case.


Really?
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:


He is getting all of this information directly from The Party of Regions, which is a pro-Russian party in Ukraine that advocates for Ukraine to be reintegrated into Russia.


Citation needed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment-marches-forward-washington/story?id=67519317



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrii_Derkach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Regions

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/sondland-testified-misleading-ukraine-story-spread-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511


So you have definitive proof that everything Rudy is claiming came from the one guy? Interesting because nothing posted claims that.
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
FriscoKid said:

Quote:

#32 There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case.


Really?
He doesn't mention Burisma in this video.
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

FriscoKid said:

Quote:

#32 There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case.


Really?
He doesn't mention Burisma in this video.


But that's the Bursima prosecutor right? "Fire him or no billion dollars"
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:


He is getting all of this information directly from The Party of Regions, which is a pro-Russian party in Ukraine that advocates for Ukraine to be reintegrated into Russia.


Citation needed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment-marches-forward-washington/story?id=67519317



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrii_Derkach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Regions

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/sondland-testified-misleading-ukraine-story-spread-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511


So you have definitive proof that everything Rudy is claiming came from the one guy? Interesting because nothing posted claims that.
It certainly hurts his credibility though.
MouthBQ98
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He does mention taking out the lead corruption prosecutor that would have been overseeing any Burisma case, however.
Wildcat
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The leftists get mad when they are accused of recycling talking points, and Jimmy V is posting a 30 something od list of festivus grievances.

Be sure to post the email that your grandmother forwarded to you.
TripleSec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tsuag10 said:

Does the source of his information make it less true?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy's information is false?

If "No", then we should probably see where this leads and let the facts present themselves.


He's just parroting the new dem talking point. Nancy changed her story to say impeachment is now because Trump is helping Russia.

So sad.
TripleSec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

FriscoKid said:

Quote:

#32 There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case.


Really?
He doesn't mention Burisma in this video.


But that's the Bursima prosecutor right? "Fire him or no billion dollars"


No its not because he never said it. And as a lemming, 2+2<> 4.
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:


He is getting all of this information directly from The Party of Regions, which is a pro-Russian party in Ukraine that advocates for Ukraine to be reintegrated into Russia.


Citation needed
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/ukraine-lawmaker-seeking-biden-probe-meets-with-giuliani-in-kyiv/2019/12/05/ead06eae-175b-11ea-80d6-d0ca7007273f_story.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rudy-giuliani-ukraine-impeachment-marches-forward-washington/story?id=67519317



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrii_Derkach

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Regions

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/sondland-testified-misleading-ukraine-story-spread-among-conservatives-social-media-n1087511


So you have definitive proof that everything Rudy is claiming came from the one guy? Interesting because nothing posted claims that.
It certainly hurts his credibility though.


So now we proven you lied.
We've also proven you cant discredit anything he posted.
And just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean you can ignore the message with out a proper dis-credidation.
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

FriscoKid said:

Quote:

#32 There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case.


Really?
He doesn't mention Burisma in this video.


But that's the Bursima prosecutor right? "Fire him or no billion dollars"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

Quote:

"There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky," Kasko said in an interview last week. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015."
aggielostinETX
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

Deats said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

FriscoKid said:

Quote:

#32 There is no evidence that Biden ever called on Ukraine to remove the prosecutor from the Burisma case.


Really?
He doesn't mention Burisma in this video.


But that's the Bursima prosecutor right? "Fire him or no billion dollars"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-05-07/timeline-in-ukraine-probe-casts-doubt-on-giuliani-s-biden-claim

Quote:

"There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against Zlochevsky," Kasko said in an interview last week. "It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015."



Slow down counselor, because that's not what you said.
Removing prosecutors and closing cases are two very different things. The new Dallas DA doesn't close cases from his predecessor, he just ignores the ones he doesn't want to deal with.
“A republic, if you can keep it”

AggieKatie2 said:
ETX is honestly starting to scare me a bit as someone who may be trigger happy.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Wildcat said:

The leftists get mad when they are accused of recycling talking points, and Jimmy V is posting a 30 something od list of festivus grievances.

Be sure to post the email that your grandmother forwarded to you.
Let me know which is your favorite
tsuag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:

Does the source of his information make it less true?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy's information is false?

If "No", then we should probably see where this leads and let the facts present themselves.
Our Intelligence Community (mUH DeEp StAte) is telling us that this information is propaganda from Russia.
I'm going to let the facts play out in this case.

Here's an alternative theory: Isn't it possible that the people involved were not acting on behalf of the Ukrainian government? I don't have a citation, but I think the IC is saying they don't think the Ukrainian Govt meddled in the election. Hell, it could be citizens of any country (Russia maybe....) who are working off of a server in Ukraine to make it appear like Ukrainians are doing it.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
tsuag10 said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:

Does the source of his information make it less true?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy's information is false?

If "No", then we should probably see where this leads and let the facts present themselves.
Our Intelligence Community (mUH DeEp StAte) is telling us that this information is propaganda from Russia.
I'm going to let the facts play out in this case.

Here's an alternative theory: Isn't it possible that the people involved were not acting on behalf of the Ukrainian government? I don't have a citation, but I think the IC is saying they don't think the Ukrainian Govt meddled in the election. Hell, it could be citizens of any country (Russia maybe....) who are working off of a server in Ukraine to make it appear like Ukrainians are doing it.
I respect that. I'm worried that Rudy is attempting to prosecute this case on Twitter though. I don't understand why he isn't shoveling all of his information straight to the FBI. If crimes occurred, airing all the evidence out on Twitter could have a negative impact on the case against those that need to be prosecuted. Since he was a former US Attorney, I suspect he knows this, which makes me believe it's political bull*****
TripleSec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tsuag10 said:

Jimmy Valentine said:

tsuag10 said:

Does the source of his information make it less true?

Do you have any evidence that Rudy's information is false?

If "No", then we should probably see where this leads and let the facts present themselves.
Our Intelligence Community (mUH DeEp StAte) is telling us that this information is propaganda from Russia.
I'm going to let the facts play out in this case.

Here's an alternative theory: Isn't it possible that the people involved were not acting on behalf of the Ukrainian government? I don't have a citation, but I think the IC is saying they don't think the Ukrainian Govt meddled in the election. Hell, it could be citizens of any country (Russia maybe....) who are working off of a server in Ukraine to make it appear like Ukrainians are doing it.


Wut? You want to talk facts? Slow down bro... Only feelings allowed in all of this.
captkirk
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:

captkirk said:



No, just the ones you think are for me, as you stated
1. Trump claimed to have released an "exact transcript" of his call with Zelensky. The document says on its first page that it is "not a verbatim transcript." All witnesses that were on the call testified the transcript was substantially accurate though.

This is stupid. Its the official record of the call that no one has disputed on substantive basis


2. Trump claimed he did not ask for anything on the call. Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.

Nothing has been debunked. Your listed lie contains a lie.

3. Trump claimed Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch "out of the blue" on the call. Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.

So, what? Zelensky thanked him for getting rid of her. He can get rid of whatever ambassador he chooses for no reason at all

4. Trump claimed that "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.

LOL

5. Trump claimed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to Trump about the call and said, "That was the most innocent phone call that I've read." McConnell said he doesn't recall speaking to Trump about the call. His public statement on the call was far less effusive than Trump's description.

He didn't recall = Trump lied

6. Trump claimed that the Washington Post made up fictional sources for its article on how Trump had allegedly tried to get Barr to hold a news conference saying Trump had broken no laws in the call. (There is no evidence that the Post invented sources. Other major news outlets, including CNN, quickly reported the same thing the Post did.

If he lied, who was the source? If you don't know, you have no evidence if this was a lie or not. The press no longer gets the benefit in the doubt in these situations, because they've been caught publishing fake news hundreds of times now as it relates to Trump. Many have been fired for it.

7. Trump claimed the whistleblower was "so wrong" The rough transcript and witness testimony have corroborated the substance of the WB's complaint.

WB made many assertions that proved to be untrue. Said Trump asked for a favor 8 times, etc. This article details the most egregious untruths:

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/complaint-from-so-called-whistleblower-is-riddled-with-gossip-blatant-falsehoods/


8. Trump claimed the whistleblower, a second whistleblower and the first whistleblower's source have all "dissapeared" There is no evidence for this. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their complaints.

He was not a protected Whistle Blower under the statute. He will be called to testify in the Senate trial. "Disappeared" in the context is a figure of speech. Do you claim he meant he actually vanished?

9. Trump claimed the whistleblower had "all second hand" information. While the whistleblower did get information about the call from other people, the whistleblower also had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," noted Michael Atkinson, the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community.

What was the direct knowledge? Trump wore a red tie on the call? There was no substantive first hand knowledge.

10. Trump claimed the whistleblower "said quid pro quo 8 times" The whistleblower did not even use the words "quid pro quo" in the complaintid those words.

See link above. I can't believe you listed this one

11. Trump claimed the whistleblower "works with Biden." There is no evidence for this. The whistleblower's lawyers said their client has never worked for or advised a candidate, campaign or party; the lawyers said the whistleblower has come into contact with presidential candidates for both parties while working as a civil servant in the executive branch.

Its been widely, widely reported. Sheriff Joe was the point man in Ukraine, along with this doofus

12. Trump claimed someone "changed the whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. The whistleblower rules were not changed.

This is a provable lie.

13. Trump claimed Schiff committed an illegal act by delivering an exaggerated interpretation of Trump's July 25 call at a committee hearing. As dumb as Schiff was for doing this, the Constitution gives members of Congress immunity for comments they make at committee.

Wow

14. Trump claimed Schiff might have committed "treason" Treason has a specific constitutional definition that Schiff's actions do not come close to meeting.

This is an opinion. You know what the word "might" means, right?

15. Trump claimed Schiff made his comments beforeTrump released the rough transcript of the call, not expecting Trump to release it. Schiff spoke the day after Trump released the document.

I have no recollection of this statement, but its irrelevant to what Schiff did. He made up a call that did not happen

16. Trump claimed Schiff might have been the WB source. This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call." ICIG Michael Atkinson would have uncovered this in his review.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. WB had to resubmit his complaint because he lied about having contact with Schiff before filing it.

17. Trump claimed Schiff might have picked the WB The whistleblower sought guidance from Schiff's committee before filing their complaint, but there is no evidence showing Schiff "picked" the whistleblower.

Again "Might". I think you libs will be caught off guard again when we learn the true details of the WB and Schiff

18. Trump claimed Schiff "will only release doctored transcripts" Schiff has already released multiple transcripts of testimony from closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings, and there was no sign that any of them had been "doctored." Witnesses and their lawyers were given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcripts prior to release, and Republicans who attended the testimony did not allege that any transcripts had been improperly altered.

He started off by only releasing cherry-picked portions of transcripts. Thats a fact

I give up on responding to each of these. Most are too stupid to waste my time responding to
BusterAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Jimmy Valentine said:


I was asked to provide a list of Trump lies surrounding this impeachment incident. A list has been provided. Please let me know if you would like any back up for any in particular.
The problem is that your list couldn't be less serious if it was colored with crayons and fingerpaints. It's so ridiculous it isn't worth even talking about.
tsuag10
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Durham has been investigating Ukraine since the summer. I feel confident that Rudy and Durham have talked.

Depending on how far along the investigation is, it may not matter what Rudy puts on Twitter. IDK
FriscoKid
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
He's a legend on this board. He really is.
End Of Message
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
For someone that has a "job," you spend an inordinate amount of time on TexAgs. Maybe you're a lawyer, like me? Or, maybe, it's a slow day at McDonalds?
Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God.
Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

1. Trump claimed to have released an "exact transcript" of his call with Zelensky. The document says on its first page that it is "not a verbatim transcript." All witnesses that were on the call testified the transcript was substantially accurate though.

This is stupid. Its the official record of the call that no one has disputed on substantive basis

Is it an exact transcript?

Quote:

2. Trump claimed he did not ask for anything on the call. Trump asked Zelensky to look into former Vice President Joe Biden, look into a debunked conspiracy theory about Democratic computer servers, and speak with his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr.

Nothing has been debunked. Your listed lie contains a lie.
The only people in the world that still believe Ukraine might have the DNC servers is Trump and his sycophants. Even Sen. Kennedy walked back his comments.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-sen-john-kennedy-i-was-wrong-to-say-ukraine-may-have-hacked-dnc-server

Quote:

3. Trump claimed Zelensky criticized former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch "out of the blue" on the call. Trump brought up Yovanovitch first.

So, what? Zelensky thanked him for getting rid of her. He can get rid of whatever ambassador he chooses for no reason at all
That doesn't change that he lied.

Quote:

4. Trump claimed that "Everybody" that looked at the text of the call agreed that it was "perfect." Some of Trump's staunch defenders agreed with this characterization, but clearly not "everybody" did.

LOL
Several witnesses testified they were did not agree the call was perfect. Even Prof. Turley said it was far from perfect.

Quote:

5. Trump claimed that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell spoke to Trump about the call and said, "That was the most innocent phone call that I've read." McConnell said he doesn't recall speaking to Trump about the call. His public statement on the call was far less effusive than Trump's description.

He didn't recall = Trump lied
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/22/politics/mcconnell-denies-trump-call-ukraine-perfect/index.html

"Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said Tuesday that he never had -- or at least doesn't recall having -- a conversation with President Donald Trump in which he described Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as perfect."





Quote:

6. Trump claimed that the Washington Post made up fictional sources for its article on how Trump had allegedly tried to get Barr to hold a news conference saying Trump had broken no laws in the call. (There is no evidence that the Post invented sources. Other major news outlets, including CNN, quickly reported the same thing the Post did.

If he lied, who was the source? If you don't know, you have no evidence if this was a lie or not. The press no longer gets the benefit in the doubt in these situations, because they've been caught publishing fake news hundreds of times now as it relates to Trump. Many have been fired for it.


https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/06/politics/trump-barr-press-conference/index.html

Quote:

7. Trump claimed the whistleblower was "so wrong" The rough transcript and witness testimony have corroborated the substance of the WB's complaint.

WB made many assertions that proved to be untrue. Said Trump asked for a favor 8 times, etc. This article details the most egregious untruths:

[url=https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/complaint-from-so-called-whistleblower-is-riddled-with-gossip-blatant-falsehoods/][/url]https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/26/complaint-from-so-called-whistleblower-is-riddled-with-gossip-blatant-falsehoods/

https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2019/10/politics/whistleblower-complaint-corroboration/

Quote:

8. Trump claimed the whistleblower, a second whistleblower and the first whistleblower's source have all "dissapeared" There is no evidence for this. Whistleblowers do not have an obligation to speak publicly after filing their complaints.

He was not a protected Whistle Blower under the statute. He will be called to testify in the Senate trial. "Disappeared" in the context is a figure of speech. Do you claim he meant he actually vanished?
The WB absolutely continues to have all the protections afforded to them under the statute. Nobody except Trump sycophants claim the WB is not a protected WB under the statute. The Republicans in the Senate may try to call the WB in to testify, that will be interesting if it happens.

Quote:

9. Trump claimed the whistleblower had "all second hand" information. While the whistleblower did get information about the call from other people, the whistleblower also had "direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct," noted Michael Atkinson, the Trump-appointed inspector general for the intelligence community.

What was the direct knowledge? Trump wore a red tie on the call? There was no substantive first hand knowledge.
https://www.dni.gov/files/ICIG/Documents/News/ICIG%20News/2019/September%2030%20-%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints/ICIG%20Statement%20on%20Processing%20of%20Whistleblower%20Complaints.pdf
Quote:

10. Trump claimed the whistleblower "said quid pro quo 8 times" The whistleblower did not even use the words "quid pro quo" in the complaintid those words.

See link above. I can't believe you listed this one
Here is the Complaint: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/read-whistleblower-complaint-trump-ukraine/index.html

Quote:

11. Trump claimed the whistleblower "works with Biden." There is no evidence for this. The whistleblower's lawyers said their client has never worked for or advised a candidate, campaign or party; the lawyers said the whistleblower has come into contact with presidential candidates for both parties while working as a civil servant in the executive branch.

Its been widely, widely reported. Sheriff Joe was the point man in Ukraine, along with this doofus
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/09/impeachment-whistleblower-attorneys-say-client-didnt-have-political-bias/3924793002/

Quote:

12. Trump claimed someone "changed the whistleblower rules" just before this whistleblower submitted their complaint. The whistleblower rules were not changed.

This is a provable lie.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/donald-trump-inspector-general-whistleblower-complaint-conspiracy-fact-check/index.html

Quote:

13. Trump claimed Schiff committed an illegal act by delivering an exaggerated interpretation of Trump's July 25 call at a committee hearing. As dumb as Schiff was for doing this, the Constitution gives members of Congress immunity for comments they make at committee.

Wow
Trump's Claim: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-air-force-one-departure-joint-base-andrews-md/

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/02/politics/trump-59-false-last-week-september-imaginary-studio/index.html

Quote:

14. Trump claimed Schiff might have committed "treason" Treason has a specific constitutional definition that Schiff's actions do not come close to meeting.

This is an opinion. You know what the word "might" means, right?
Here is the statute for Treason: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleiii#:~:targetText=Treason%20against%20the%20United%20States,on%20confession%20in%20open%20court.


Quote:

15. Trump claimed Schiff made his comments before Trump released the rough transcript of the call, not expecting Trump to release it. Schiff spoke the day after Trump released the document.

I have no recollection of this statement, but its irrelevant to what Schiff did. He made up a call that did not happen
Trump's claim: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-marine-one-departure-74/

Still a lie

Quote:

16. Trump claimed Schiff might have been the WB source. This is nonsense. The whistleblower said in the complaint that information about the call came from "multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call." ICIG Michael Atkinson would have uncovered this in his review.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. WB had to resubmit his complaint because he lied about having contact with Schiff before filing it.

Trump's claim: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-president-trump-cabinet-meeting-15/

No evidence to support this. Atkinson did not know about the WB's communication with Schiff's staff.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ukraine-whistleblower-did-not-disclose-contact-with-schiffs-committee-to-intel-inspector-general-sources-say

Quote:

17. Trump claimed Schiff might have picked the WB. The whistleblower sought guidance from Schiff's committee before filing their complaint, but there is no evidence showing Schiff "picked" the whistleblower.

Again "Might". I think you libs will be caught off guard again when we learn the true details of the WB and Schiff

Trump made a claim with zero evidence to support it. Also, for the 1,000th time. I am not a lib.

Quote:

18. Trump claimed Schiff "will only release doctored transcripts" Schiff has already released multiple transcripts of testimony from closed-door impeachment inquiry hearings, and there was no sign that any of them had been "doctored." Witnesses and their lawyers were given the opportunity to verify the accuracy of the transcripts prior to release, and Republicans who attended the testimony did not allege that any transcripts had been improperly altered.

He started off by only releasing cherry-picked portions of transcripts. Thats a fact
Do you have a link proving that it was Schiff leaking portions of transcripts?

Jimmy Valentine
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Pinche Abogado said:

For someone that has a "job," you spend an inordinate amount of time on TexAgs. Maybe you're a lawyer, like me? Or, maybe, it's a slow day at McDonalds?
I'm a CPA
First Page Last Page
Page 145 of 264
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.