How Long Does It Take to Destroy Democrats Fake Impeachment? 2 HOURS

[Condor060]

To slime and weasel. Your personal attack against me, which was a lie. You lied about a member in attempt to win a debate. That's disgusting and pathetic and you can't expect people to continue with you under those circumstances. Good day.

Projecting much these days?

Wasn't this your post.

"How long would it take for me to destroy the democratic government of Ukraine to the benefit of Russia by withholding approved aid?"

That's what he asked the Soviet-born Russian he hired as a personal secret agent, whom he then sent to Ukraine to harass a US ambassador.

You get caught lying in a post, and when your called out on that lie you accuse me of a personal attack?

If you can't take the heat, don't falsify information.

 

[Condor060]

No, probably not. Nobody has ever started a thread this way that didn't end up being the opposite of what the other poster was saying.

What ever that means.

This is your post.

All of trump’s lawyers’ arguments have been shown to be false already. They’re based on child’s logic and gas lighting.

So what arguments have been shown to be false? You said all of them. Which arguments are false.

 

[Cardinal]

So what arguments have been shown to be false?

All of the ones you and Trump's lawyers presented.

 

[Condor060]

I primarily watch alternative news on youtube.

You're consumed by the idiocy of fox news, the second most dangerous thing to this nation since Nixon.

Yet all evidence to the contrary. Remind us all again who is tanking in ratings for fake news?

 

[ttwtt78640]

I primarily watch alternative news on youtube.

You're consumed by the idiocy of fox news, the second most dangerous thing to this nation since Nixon.

A steady diet of any single MSM "news" source is not a good thing. There is no shortage of alternative (social media?) "news" sources, yet a steady diet of a single one of them is likely no better.

 

[Condor060]

All of the ones you and Trump's lawyers presented.

You going to provide proof of these lies are just spitballing for effect?

Pick any claim made by the WH lawyers and show me where they lied. Should be easy for you since you claim all of their claims were lies.

 

[Cardinal]

You going to provide proof -

You're the one repeating conspiracy theories. Prove them yourself.

 

[ludin]

So you are saying

1. The WH lawyers have illegally edited the videos of the ambassadors and statesmen testifying Ukraine had no idea of the aid being held up.
We all told you this for months but you wouldn't listen

2. The WH lawyers have illegally edited the videos of the Schiff knowingly lying about conclusive evidence and his made up phone call transcript
We all told you this for months but you wouldn't listen

3. The WH lawyers have falsely stated the Constitutional requirement of how the House must vote for an impeachment inquiry and delegate that authority to the committee before the committee can legally subpoena federal records and documents
We all told you this for months but you wouldn't listen

So all you have now is they are gas lighting? How many times have you used this gas lighting excuse since you have been on DP? Hundreds? thousands?

If you actually thought the WH lawyers were lying you would be able to disprove their claims. But you can't so you run back to your normal gas lighting claims.

YOu should know by now that none of these people are honestly going to argue any of your points.

 

[Obscurity]

Yet all evidence to the contrary. Remind us all again who is tanking in ratings for fake news?

Do you think I give a **** about ratings? Just because fox has good ratings does not mean it's not pravda propaganda. The brainwashed never admit they're brainwashed.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You're the one repeating conspiracy theories. Prove them yourself.

But in a court of law, a man is innocent until proven guilty, so the ball is in your court.

You guys need to prove him guilty. Nobody needs to prove he isn't.

 

[Obscurity]

A steady diet of any single MSM "news" source is not a good thing. There is no shortage of alternative (social media?) "news" sources, yet a steady diet of a single one of them is likely no better.

The only MSM source I trust is the AP; they're pretty much straight shooters. As far as youtube news goes, I listen to multiple shows across platforms, some on twitch as well.

I don't listen to one single source. I need to hear multiple perspectives.

 

[ludin]

To slime and weasel. Your personal attack against me, which was a lie. You lied about a member in attempt to win a debate. That's disgusting and pathetic and you can't expect people to continue with you under those circumstances. Good day.

There was no personal attack against you.

you made a knowingly false claim and got called out on it.
that is not a personal attack it is simply you not being able to admit
that they were wrong.

no where on that tape was said what you said was on there.

basically you pulled a schiff.

 

[ecofarm]

There was no personal attack against you.

So stupid.

You are just lying to bolster your own hate for Trump at the expense of your own credibility.

I support the tax cut, the strike on Iran and moving the embassy. I believe Trump meant the monument debate when he said "fine people".

That's proof. I'm not a "Trump hater".

So it was a personal attack and a lie. He lied about a member in attempt to win a debate. This is a fact. He claimed hate where none exists; he might as well have called someone a bigot.

Are you against calling people bigots when they're not? Or do you support false accusations of bigotry. It looks like you support false accusations of bigotry.

 

[Condor060]

You're the one repeating conspiracy theories. Prove them yourself.

I started a thread and listed the claims of the WH lawyers. You said they were all lies? Now you want me to prove they aren't lies?

Of, I'll bite. Here is one claim for your ridiculous request.

Democrats claim Obstruction of Congress because Trump won't provide information for their subpoenas.

WH lawyers have shown this to be a false claim.

Before a committee on impeachment is authorized subpoena power, the House must delegate its authority to do so. The only way that can be done is through an impeachment inquiry vote and a delegation of subpoena power to the committee.

The reason for this requirement is so no one person can impeach a president. Pelosi didn't hold an impeachment inquiry vote. She decided on her own with no votes to convene a committee for impeachment. Pelosi has no power to authorize any committee on impeachment to submit subpoenas.

The committee was told this when they started sending out subpoenas to the president but they decided to move forward anyway. They were never delegated any authority from a House vote so their subpoenas are not legal. They could have gone to a federal judge to enforce their subpoenas but decided not to.

So their claim of Obstruction of Congress fails because they were never authorized to subpoena ANYTHING for a formal impeachment. Without a process by which Congress can coerce compliance or deter non-compliance via judicial ruling, the subpoena would be reduced to a formalized request rather than a constitutionally based demand for information.

This is supported by prior rulings of the SCOTUS.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf

So how did the WH lawyers lie about how the Obstruction of Congress charge is invalid?
How did they lie about the constitutional requirements for a Congressional committee to provide a subpoena for an impeachment investigation?

 

[Cardinal]

I started a thread and listed the claims of the WH lawyers.

Great. Now prove them to be true.

 

[ludin]

So stupid.



I support the tax cut, the strike on Iran and moving the embassy. I believe Trump meant the monument debate when he said "fine people".

That's proof. I'm not a "Trump hater".

So it was a personal attack and a lie. He lied about a member in attempt to win a debate. This is a fact. He claimed hate where none exists; he might as well have called someone a bigot.

Are you against calling people bigots when they're not? Or do you support false accusations of bigotry. It looks like you support false accusations of bigotry.

pointing out someonne's trump hate is not a personal attack.
He didn't lie your rants on trump are pretty much well known.

You call people bigots all the time when they are not so please hold yourself to your own standards.
no that would be you but that aside.

you lied in your original argument.
the question is now why did you lie about what was said?

 

[ludin]

Great. Now prove them to be true.

If you are making the claim that they are lies then the burden of proof is on you.
that is how this goes. shifting the burden is a fallacy not an argument.

 

[Cardinal]

If you are making the claim that they are lies then the burden of proof is on you.
that is how this goes. shifting the burden is a fallacy not an argument.

Um...no. If you make a false claim, as the OP and trump's lawyers have, then the burden is on them to support those claims with evidence. I get why this is surprising to you because you think you should be able to lie with total freedom. You do not.

 

[ludin]

I started a thread and listed the claims of the WH lawyers. You said they were all lies? Now you want me to prove they aren't lies?

Of, I'll bite. Here is one claim for your ridiculous request.

Democrats claim Obstruction of Congress because Trump won't provide information for their subpoenas.

WH lawyers have shown this to be a false claim.

Before a committee on impeachment is authorized subpoena power, the House must delegate its authority to do so. The only way that can be done is through an impeachment inquiry vote and a delegation of subpoena power to the committee.

The reason for this requirement is so no one person can impeach a president. Pelosi didn't hold an impeachment inquiry vote. She decided on her own with no votes to convene a committee for impeachment. Pelosi has no power to authorize any committee on impeachment to submit subpoenas.

The committee was told this when they started sending out subpoenas to the president but they decided to move forward anyway. They were never delegated any authority from a House vote so their subpoenas are not legal. They could have gone to a federal judge to enforce their subpoenas but decided not to.

So their claim of Obstruction of Congress fails because they were never authorized to subpoena ANYTHING for a formal impeachment. Without a process by which Congress can coerce compliance or deter non-compliance via judicial ruling, the subpoena would be reduced to a formalized request rather than a constitutionally based demand for information.

This is supported by prior rulings of the SCOTUS.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45653.pdf

So how did the WH lawyers lie about how the Obstruction of Congress charge is invalid?
How did they lie about the constitutional requirements for a Congressional committee to provide a subpoena for an impeachment investigation?

I also found similar information as well. that it none of these subpoena's were legal and no authority.
i posted this information on here several times and to him as well. as usual leftist ignore facts.

 

[Condor060]

Great. Now prove them to be true.

You asked me to prove it and I did.

There is no reason to try and prove what a witness testified too from a video of their testimony.
There is no reason to try and prove what Schiff stated in his video.

The videos speak for themselves.

I provided you with the claim as to why the charge for Obstruction of Congress fails with rulings from the SCOTUS.

Now show me where the WH lawyers lied as you claimed.

 

[ludin]

Um...no. If you make a false claim, as the OP and trump's lawyers have, then the burden is on them to support those claims with evidence. I get why this is surprising to you because you think you should be able to lie with total freedom. You do not.

you claiming they are false is not an argument.
if you want to claim them false then you again need to provide proof that they are false.
again you are shifting the burden to him in order to try and prove a negative.

so really we have 2 or 3 different argument fallacies going on here.

1. You have a circular logic fallacy (they are false because i say they are false)
2. You have a shifting the burden fallacy as you are making the claim they are false. I seriously doubt trump high profile team is going to make false claims.
they are very well versed in the law and on these subjects.
3. an ad hominem as well go figure on that right up your alley.

So far the only person that has lied is schiff yet i don't see you calling him out on it.
so we can take your faux outrage of lies is just more partisan hackery.

 

[Condor060]

Do you think I give a **** about ratings?

Of course you don't. It goes against everything you claim. How convenient for you. lol

Just because fox has good ratings does not mean it's not pravda propaganda. The brainwashed never admit they're brainwashed.

So the millions who watche Fox news are all brainwashed but only you know better?

Think I'll go with occums razor here.

 

[ecofarm]

pointing out someonne's trump hate is not a personal attack.

:lol:

How moroonic.

 

[Irwin Corey]

So what did we learn in the first two hours of the Democrats fake Impeachment scam from White House attorneys?

1. The House never voted for an impeachment inquiry so no authority was ever delegated to the committee to authorize them to Subpoena anyone as provided in the Constitution and supported by the SCOTUS.

2. Trumps attorneys were communicating with the committee and no blanket refusal of documents ever existed

3. Every witness Democrats claimed convicts Trump actually testified they have no evidence or information of bribery, Quid pro quo, or any other impeachable crimes. They were only testifying to what they presumed.

4. Every witness testified that Ukraine didn't know anything about a hold on aid until they heard about it in a Politico news release. How can you extort someone who doesn't even know they are being extorted?

5. Schiff tried to claim Trump is responsible for the deaths of Ukrainian solders because he held up aid. But he forgot that Obama NEVER gave any lethal aid to Ukraine so how many soldiers are those committees and the Democrat managers responsible for since 2014?

6. The Federal courts just adjudicated that the FISA warrants used to investigate Trump and his campaign were illegal and fraudulent.

7. Democrat managers continue to make the claim they have overwhelming, devastating, staggering, and conclusive evidence
yet they need more witnesses?

8. Schiff lied about his relationship with the whistle blower

9. Schiff lied about his rendition of the Zelenski phone call

10 Schiff lied about having conclusive evidence of Trump colluding with Russians

I can't wait to hear what will be exposed tomorrow since this is the FIRST TIME Trump has been represented and heard throughout this process.

#1 is proved a lie by this article: Must the House Vote to Authorize an Impeachment Inquiry? - Lawfare

#2 is proved a lie by this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-impeachment-inquiry-live-updates/2019/10/08/55dd0b64-e94c-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

#3 Vidman did have direct knowledge: Biggest takeaways in Alexander Vindman'''s impeachment testimony - Business Insider

#4 is also a lie: Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense - The New York Times

#5-8-9-10: here's a whole page about the lies being told about Representative Schiff: Adam Schiff Archives - FactCheck.org among which are your lies about him.

And your closing statement is Bull **** too: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/06/785681527/trump-declines-to-take-part-in-baseless-house-impeachment-inquiry

Last time we played this game you got 1 right, you didn't even do that well this time. :roll:

 

[Condor060]

I also found similar information as well. that it none of these subpoena's were legal and no authority.
i posted this information on here several times and to him as well. as usual leftist ignore facts.

He won't answer it. He never does. All he does is post fake claims and when you corner him for evidence he just goes on to his gas lighting claims.