Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

Last time I'm gonna say this, because you are plainly trolling now: Libertarians have a small thing for freedom, we don't like big govt, and we sure as hell don't like authoritarians who who abuse their power. Trump used the power he has to interfere with congressionally authorized funding in order to secure a personal benefit to his re-election campaign.

I know that your talking points are all about liberal bias and hate and Deep State bogeyman. The Coup Cucks Clan are out in full force.

But you don't have to be a liberal, or part of the Deep State, or a socialist or a Democrat to have problems with this president. Republicans from George Will to Ann Coulter to Judge Napolitano are critical of our president and they cannot all be labelled liberal, not in any sensible use of that term.

Rather than being a t-shirt fan of a TV star, try viewing the world from a set of principles and judge every elected official by those principles. Instead of celebrating being on the winning team, try celebrating advancements in liberty and economic freedom.

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE.

---

You don't know what evidence is, you have demonstrated that multiple times and I have chided you for your Google law degree multiple times for just that reason.

And all caps is not persuasive.

I consider the partial transcript as evidence, as well as the testimony of Hill, Vindman, Sondlund and others. You should go to Fox and watch Judge Nap lay out the evidence.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

Last time I'm gonna say this, because you are plainly trolling now: Libertarians have a small thing for freedom, we don't like big govt, and we sure as hell don't like authoritarians who who abuse their power. Trump used the power he has to interfere with congressionally authorized funding in order to secure a personal benefit to his re-election campaign.

I know that your talking points are all about liberal bias and hate and Deep State bogeyman. The Coup Cucks Clan are out in full force.

But you don't have to be a liberal, or part of the Deep State, or a socialist or a Democrat to have problems with this president. Republicans from George Will to Ann Coulter to Judge Napolitano are critical of our president and they cannot all be labelled liberal, not in any sensible use of that term.

Rather than being a t-shirt fan of a TV star, try viewing the world from a set of principles and judge every elected official by those principles. Instead of celebrating being on the winning team, try celebrating advancements in liberty and economic freedom.

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE.

---

You don't know what evidence is, you have demonstrated that multiple times and I have chided you for your Google law degree multiple times for just that reason.

And all caps is not persuasive.

I consider the partial transcript as evidence, as well as the testimony of Hill, Vindman, Sondlund and others. You should go to Fox and watch Judge Nap lay out the evidence.

---

None of the Democrats' witnesses testified to having evidence of bribery, extortion, or any high crime or misdemeanors. Simply stating their presence is enough shows how ****ing little you know about our legal system.

Can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence of criminality they provided?

Please debunk the following with evidence:

1.) The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump pressured President Zelensky to initiate investigations for the purpose of benefiting the President in the 2020 election.

2.) The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump covered up the summary of his phone conversation with President Zelensky.

3.)The evidence does not support the accusation that President Trump obstructed the Democrats' impeachment inquiry.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

You are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Where is your DIRECT evidence? That is the standard needed to impeach, anything less is disgraceful and you know it. 70M people support this President and you're going support impeachment on the basis of hearsay? WOW.

More people with 1st hand knowledge deny the hearsay, presumption and speculation: but we both know you avoided that. Care to explain why that doesn't count?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, please respond.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

It's patently obvious he was seeking to discredit Biden by withholding aid until Ukraine made an announcement of investigating Biden. That's not much different than intent of the Watergate break in, that Nixon covered up. It's pretty obvious that Trump orchestrated this attempt at coercion. If congress determines whether it is impeachable. The senate may decide it's not egregious to the point of removal in an election year.

How do you know he is not a libertarian? What is your definition of a libertarian?

---

How is it patently obvious?

You call yourself a scientist but you deliver no facts to your claims.
You're a Leftist, Christian hating troll and you subscribe to group think more than any Religion: enough so that you go out of your way to discredit baptists on their own website.

---

Trump's own mouth, his chief of staff, testimony of NSC and State Department high level staff and ambassadors, Rudy Giuliani's activities, common sense, and refusal to allow testimony for starters.

I'm not a leftist, and I don't hate Christians. I don't agree with any religion, and point out the obvious flaws with religion on a discussion board that says it is about religion and politics - a board that appears to have as many Catholics, if not more, than Baptists participating. If you want groupthink, you need to go to church on Sunday. I just think people should focus on the evidence of reality, and use that as a basis for responsible decision making, as opposed to abdicating responsibility for our future to faith in any unproven and mythical deity. If the owners of the site state it is for Baptists only, as opposed to Baylor graduates, I'll be happy to abandon it to groupthink.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

It's patently obvious he was seeking to discredit Biden by withholding aid until Ukraine made an announcement of investigating Biden. That's not much different than intent of the Watergate break in, that Nixon covered up. It's pretty obvious that Trump orchestrated this attempt at coercion. If congress determines whether it is impeachable. The senate may decide it's not egregious to the point of removal in an election year.

How do you know he is not a libertarian? What is your definition of a libertarian?

---

How is it patently obvious?

You call yourself a scientist but you deliver no facts to your claims.
You're a Leftist, Christian hating troll and you subscribe to group think more than any Religion: enough so that you go out of your way to discredit baptists on their own website.

---

Trump's own mouth, his chief of staff, testimony of NSC and State Department high level staff and ambassadors, Rudy Giuliani's activities, common sense, and refusal to allow testimony for starters.

I'm not a leftist, and I don't hate Christians. I don't agree with any religion, and point out the obvious flaws with religion on a discussion board that says it is about religion and politics - a board that appears to have as many Catholics, if not more, than Baptists participating. If you want groupthink, you need to go to church on Sunday. I just think people should focus on the evidence of reality, and use that as a basis for responsible decision making, as opposed to abdicating responsibility for our future to faith in any unproven and mythical deity. If the owners of the site state it is for Baptists only, as opposed to Baylor graduates, I'll be happy to abandon it to groupthink.

---

As a virulent atheist, why did you gave thousands to a Baptist University whose own self admitted cause is to expand faith?

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

It's patently obvious he was seeking to discredit Biden by withholding aid until Ukraine made an announcement of investigating Biden. That's not much different than intent of the Watergate break in, that Nixon covered up. It's pretty obvious that Trump orchestrated this attempt at coercion. If congress determines whether it is impeachable. The senate may decide it's not egregious to the point of removal in an election year.

How do you know he is not a libertarian? What is your definition of a libertarian?

---

How is it patently obvious?

You call yourself a scientist but you deliver no facts to your claims.
You're a Leftist, Christian hating troll and you subscribe to group think more than any Religion: enough so that you go out of your way to discredit baptists on their own website.

---

Trump's own mouth, his chief of staff, testimony of NSC and State Department high level staff and ambassadors, Rudy Giuliani's activities, common sense, and refusal to allow testimony for starters.

I'm not a leftist, and I don't hate Christians. I don't agree with any religion, and point out the obvious flaws with religion on a discussion board that says it is about religion and politics - a board that appears to have as many Catholics, if not more, than Baptists participating. If you want groupthink, you need to go to church on Sunday. I just think people should focus on the evidence of reality, and use that as a basis for responsible decision making, as opposed to abdicating responsibility for our future to faith in any unproven and mythical deity. If the owners of the site state it is for Baptists only, as opposed to Baylor graduates, I'll be happy to abandon it to groupthink.

---

As a virulent atheist, why did you gave thousands to a Baptist University whose own self admitted cause is to expand faith?

---

I wasn't a virulent or contagious atheist when I attended Baylor. I was actually on the other end of the spectrum, and I have a family tradition of attending Baylor. Baylor is much more secular than Baptists want to admit or realize, and is on par with just about any other University. The religion and science departments are where I first began to question religion, especially Christianity. I don't see how Baylor is doing anything significant to expand the faith, and the university has departments that are liberal and conservative in faculty, depending upon the subject or school. Pretty much like most other schools. The BGT's contribution is not as a great a part of the overall budget as it used to be. Actually, Baylor's BOR set Baylor up for independence from Baptists, when they reorganized the board, such that if and when they decide the influence and funding is not worth the continued association, they can move on.

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

It's patently obvious he was seeking to discredit Biden by withholding aid until Ukraine made an announcement of investigating Biden. That's not much different than intent of the Watergate break in, that Nixon covered up. It's pretty obvious that Trump orchestrated this attempt at coercion. If congress determines whether it is impeachable. The senate may decide it's not egregious to the point of removal in an election year.

How do you know he is not a libertarian? What is your definition of a libertarian?

---

How is it patently obvious?

You call yourself a scientist but you deliver no facts to your claims.
You're a Leftist, Christian hating troll and you subscribe to group think more than any Religion: enough so that you go out of your way to discredit baptists on their own website.

---

Trump's own mouth, his chief of staff, testimony of NSC and State Department high level staff and ambassadors, Rudy Giuliani's activities, common sense, and refusal to allow testimony for starters.

I'm not a leftist, and I don't hate Christians. I don't agree with any religion, and point out the obvious flaws with religion on a discussion board that says it is about religion and politics - a board that appears to have as many Catholics, if not more, than Baptists participating. If you want groupthink, you need to go to church on Sunday. I just think people should focus on the evidence of reality, and use that as a basis for responsible decision making, as opposed to abdicating responsibility for our future to faith in any unproven and mythical deity. If the owners of the site state it is for Baptists only, as opposed to Baylor graduates, I'll be happy to abandon it to groupthink.

---

As a virulent atheist, why did you gave thousands to a Baptist University whose own self admitted cause is to expand faith?

---

I wasn't a virulent or contagious atheist when I attended Baylor. I was actually on the other end of the spectrum, and I have a family tradition of attending Baylor. Baylor is much more secular than Baptists want to admit or realize, and is on par with just about any other University. The religion and science departments are where I first began to question religion, especially Christianity. I don't see how Baylor is doing anything significant to expand the faith, and the university has departments that are liberal and conservative in faculty, depending upon the subject or school. Pretty much like most other schools. The BGT's contribution is not as a great a part of the overall budget as it used to be. Actually, Baylor's BOR set Baylor up for independence from Baptists, when they reorganized the board, such that if and when they decide the influence and funding is not worth the continued association, they can move on.

---

https://www.baylor.edu/about/index.php?id=90435

Quote:

---

Our goal is intellectual activity that springs from disciplined habits of the heart and inspires action on behalf of the world.



The number of national universities that take their religious identity seriously is small, and Baylor is one of a smaller group representing the free church tradition of Christianity. Among these, Baylor already stands out for its achievements, academic and religious. And judged by objective academic standards, Baylor continues to move forward with distinction.

• Encourage the integration of Christian faith and the intellectual life;
• Support, encourage, and expect excellence in all undertakings;
• Provide a unique place for learning and the building of community;
• Equip individuals to understand life as a divine calling and thus serve society and the world in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
• Promote the health of mind, body, and spirit as these are understood in the Christian tradition and by the best of modern physical and psychological science;
• Strive to illuminate and enrich human experience by the word of God and the best of human science and culture;
• Encourage the understanding and care of the natural world as a matter of Christian stewardship;
• Facilitate the discovery of new knowledge to the glory of God and the betterment of humanity;
• Extend the campus in time and space to embrace our entire community in relationships of caring and mutual benefit; and
• Anticipate and respond to change in higher education and the world.

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

You are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Where is your DIRECT evidence? That is the standard needed to impeach, anything less is disgraceful and you know it. 70M people support this President and you're going support impeachment on the basis of hearsay? WOW.

More people with 1st hand knowledge deny the hearsay, presumption and speculation: but we both know you avoided that. Care to explain why that doesn't count?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, please respond.

---

Google Law really messed you up. I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything. I'm saying that there is sufficient evidence to go forward, but you don't know what evidence is.

Show me where in the constitution or federal law that there is a standard requiring direct evidence (whatever that is) for impeachment. Or even firsthand. Fed Rule 803 provides for exceptions where hearsay is admissible. Twenty-three exceptions. Anything at Art 1 Sec 3 (or elsewhere) to change that?

Popularity is not an element of impeachment. That you stack that on top of your non-legal concepts is embarrassing, but not to me.

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

quash said:

---

Carlos Safety said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

What does 2020 have to do with this? The election will have no relevance to these impeachment proceedings. If anything, it will be an indicator of how much corruption is acceptable for a President.

Sad that the media and politicians will seek to divide us by degrees of corruption, when all politicians are almost by default corrupt.

---

Umm corruption is important to you. I could take that a little more seriously had the Democrat party (a)not selected Hillary as its last nominee and (b) rigged the nomination against the avowed communist, Bernie. Those were the Democrats' #1 and #2 candidates. And of course, there are all those years of Democrats accepting money from Trump and his business concerns. None of this bothered anyone until Trump beat the ears off of Hillary.

---

Many of us condemned the DNC and it's superdelegate scam.

---

The DNC's top candidates are all corrupt. You are upset that Trump is merely conducting foreign policy. Clean up your own house.

---

You have a funny sense of what is corrupt. Trump was interfering in U.S. policy to benefit his campaign.

And my house is clean.

---

Trump cannot interfere with U.S. policy. He sets U.S. policy. And you can only speculate why he did and said what he did and said because (a) we still have no first-hand account of much of anything and (b) it is quite likely he wanted an investigation into the Biden affair to see if a criminal act was committed.

No, your house is not clean. You are Democrat. Stop trying to claim otherwise.

---

Trump withheld congressionally appropriated funds. Your support for an imperial.presidency is precious.

And your concept of libertarians is as warped as your definition of "corrupt".

---

That the President would have plenary or near plenary power to conduct foreign policy does not make him Imperial. It makes him the President acting within his power.

You are no libertarian. Go sell your crazy to someone who is buying.

---

Perhaps you miss all the times I point out how Congress has delegated too much of its constitutional authority to the executive. Here, Congress responded to an executive request for money for foreign military aid. But nothing in the aid package was for campaign requests.

Plenary power over foreign policy is fine. Withholding duly appropriated funds for a campaign benefit is not any kind of foreign policy. It is an abuse of authority. Libertarians have a problem with excess govt power. Maybe you should expand your knowledge of what libertarians stand for. Worshiping power ain't i it.

---

You are speculating that Donald Trump was requesting a campaign benefit and even if he was it is not an impeachable offense. You are no liberterian.

---

It's patently obvious he was seeking to discredit Biden by withholding aid until Ukraine made an announcement of investigating Biden. That's not much different than intent of the Watergate break in, that Nixon covered up. It's pretty obvious that Trump orchestrated this attempt at coercion. If congress determines whether it is impeachable. The senate may decide it's not egregious to the point of removal in an election year.

How do you know he is not a libertarian? What is your definition of a libertarian?

---

How is it patently obvious?

You call yourself a scientist but you deliver no facts to your claims.
You're a Leftist, Christian hating troll and you subscribe to group think more than any Religion: enough so that you go out of your way to discredit baptists on their own website.

---

Trump's own mouth, his chief of staff, testimony of NSC and State Department high level staff and ambassadors, Rudy Giuliani's activities, common sense, and refusal to allow testimony for starters.

I'm not a leftist, and I don't hate Christians. I don't agree with any religion, and point out the obvious flaws with religion on a discussion board that says it is about religion and politics - a board that appears to have as many Catholics, if not more, than Baptists participating. If you want groupthink, you need to go to church on Sunday. I just think people should focus on the evidence of reality, and use that as a basis for responsible decision making, as opposed to abdicating responsibility for our future to faith in any unproven and mythical deity. If the owners of the site state it is for Baptists only, as opposed to Baylor graduates, I'll be happy to abandon it to groupthink.

---

As a virulent atheist, why did you gave thousands to a Baptist University whose own self admitted cause is to expand faith?

---

I wasn't a virulent or contagious atheist when I attended Baylor. I was actually on the other end of the spectrum, and I have a family tradition of attending Baylor. Baylor is much more secular than Baptists want to admit or realize, and is on par with just about any other University. The religion and science departments are where I first began to question religion, especially Christianity. I don't see how Baylor is doing anything significant to expand the faith, and the university has departments that are liberal and conservative in faculty, depending upon the subject or school. Pretty much like most other schools. The BGT's contribution is not as a great a part of the overall budget as it used to be. Actually, Baylor's BOR set Baylor up for independence from Baptists, when they reorganized the board, such that if and when they decide the influence and funding is not worth the continued association, they can move on.

---

https://www.baylor.edu/about/index.php?id=90435

Quote:

---

Our goal is intellectual activity that springs from disciplined habits of the heart and inspires action on behalf of the world.



The number of national universities that take their religious identity seriously is small, and Baylor is one of a smaller group representing the free church tradition of Christianity. Among these, Baylor already stands out for its achievements, academic and religious. And judged by objective academic standards, Baylor continues to move forward with distinction.

• Encourage the integration of Christian faith and the intellectual life;
• Support, encourage, and expect excellence in all undertakings;
• Provide a unique place for learning and the building of community;
• Equip individuals to understand life as a divine calling and thus serve society and the world in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ;
• Promote the health of mind, body, and spirit as these are understood in the Christian tradition and by the best of modern physical and psychological science;
• Strive to illuminate and enrich human experience by the word of God and the best of human science and culture;
• Encourage the understanding and care of the natural world as a matter of Christian stewardship;
• Facilitate the discovery of new knowledge to the glory of God and the betterment of humanity;
• Extend the campus in time and space to embrace our entire community in relationships of caring and mutual benefit; and
• Anticipate and respond to change in higher education and the world.

---

---

Window dressing. Bullet points 1, 5, 6, and 8 are contradictions.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

You are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Where is your DIRECT evidence? That is the standard needed to impeach, anything less is disgraceful and you know it. 70M people support this President and you're going support impeachment on the basis of hearsay? WOW.

More people with 1st hand knowledge deny the hearsay, presumption and speculation: but we both know you avoided that. Care to explain why that doesn't count?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, please respond.

---

Google Law really messed you up. I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything. I'm saying that there is sufficient evidence to go forward, but you don't know what evidence is.

Show me where in the constitution or federal law that there is a standard requiring direct evidence (whatever that is) for impeachment. Or even firsthand. Fed Rule 803 provides for exceptions where hearsay is admissible. Twenty-three exceptions. Anything at Art 1 Sec 3 (or elsewhere) to change that?

Popularity is not an element of impeachment. That you stack that on top of your non-legal concepts is embarrassing, but not to me.

---

Don't flip the script. You said POTUS was guilty based on hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Quote:

---

Trump used the power he has to interfere with congressionally authorized funding in order to secure a personal benefit to his re-election campaign. - Quash

I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything - Quash

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

You are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Where is your DIRECT evidence? That is the standard needed to impeach, anything less is disgraceful and you know it. 70M people support this President and you're going support impeachment on the basis of hearsay? WOW.

More people with 1st hand knowledge deny the hearsay, presumption and speculation: but we both know you avoided that. Care to explain why that doesn't count?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, please respond.

---

Google Law really messed you up. I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything. I'm saying that there is sufficient evidence to go forward, but you don't know what evidence is.

Show me where in the constitution or federal law that there is a standard requiring direct evidence (whatever that is) for impeachment. Or even firsthand. Fed Rule 803 provides for exceptions where hearsay is admissible. Twenty-three exceptions. Anything at Art 1 Sec 3 (or elsewhere) to change that?

Popularity is not an element of impeachment. That you stack that on top of your non-legal concepts is embarrassing, but not to me.

---

Don't flip the script. You said POTUS was guilty based on hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Quote:

---

Trump used the power he has to interfere with congressionally authorized funding in order to secure a personal benefit to his re-election campaign. - Quash

I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything - Quash

---

---

That's says there is sufficient evidence to move on to impeachment. The Senate determines guilt.

Unless your Google Law course taught you that there is an offense called "Interfering with a congressional appropriation to secure a campaign benefit".

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

You are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Where is your DIRECT evidence? That is the standard needed to impeach, anything less is disgraceful and you know it. 70M people support this President and you're going support impeachment on the basis of hearsay? WOW.

More people with 1st hand knowledge deny the hearsay, presumption and speculation: but we both know you avoided that. Care to explain why that doesn't count?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, please respond.

---

Google Law really messed you up. I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything. I'm saying that there is sufficient evidence to go forward, but you don't know what evidence is.

Show me where in the constitution or federal law that there is a standard requiring direct evidence (whatever that is) for impeachment. Or even firsthand. Fed Rule 803 provides for exceptions where hearsay is admissible. Twenty-three exceptions. Anything at Art 1 Sec 3 (or elsewhere) to change that?

Popularity is not an element of impeachment. That you stack that on top of your non-legal concepts is embarrassing, but not to me.

---

Don't flip the script. You said POTUS was guilty based on hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Quote:

---

Trump used the power he has to interfere with congressionally authorized funding in order to secure a personal benefit to his re-election campaign. - Quash

I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything - Quash

---

---

That's says there is sufficient evidence to move on to impeachment. The Senate determines guilt.

Unless your Google Law course taught you that there is an offense called "Interfering with a congressional appropriation to secure a campaign benefit".

---

I'm not talking about impeachment, I am talking about your claims that he's guilty. You clearly made the claim based on hearsay, presumptions, and speculation..

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

You are alleging guilt on the basis of hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Where is your DIRECT evidence? That is the standard needed to impeach, anything less is disgraceful and you know it. 70M people support this President and you're going support impeachment on the basis of hearsay? WOW.

More people with 1st hand knowledge deny the hearsay, presumption and speculation: but we both know you avoided that. Care to explain why that doesn't count?

If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, please respond.

---

Google Law really messed you up. I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything. I'm saying that there is sufficient evidence to go forward, but you don't know what evidence is.

Show me where in the constitution or federal law that there is a standard requiring direct evidence (whatever that is) for impeachment. Or even firsthand. Fed Rule 803 provides for exceptions where hearsay is admissible. Twenty-three exceptions. Anything at Art 1 Sec 3 (or elsewhere) to change that?

Popularity is not an element of impeachment. That you stack that on top of your non-legal concepts is embarrassing, but not to me.

---

Don't flip the script. You said POTUS was guilty based on hearsay, presumptions, and speculation.

Quote:

---

Trump used the power he has to interfere with congressionally authorized funding in order to secure a personal benefit to his re-election campaign. - Quash

I'm not alleging guilt on the basis of anything - Quash

---

---

That's says there is sufficient evidence to move on to impeachment. The Senate determines guilt.

Unless your Google Law course taught you that there is an offense called "Interfering with a congressional appropriation to secure a campaign benefit".

---

I'm not talking about impeachment, I am talking about your claims that he's guilty. You clearly made the claim based on hearsay, presumptions, and speculation..

---

I never said he was guilty. If I have been shown proof of elements of a crime and ask that the case be submitted to a grand jury for indictment I am not making any conclusions as to guilt.

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Nice spin. If you cannot see the difference between Biden and Trump then your jersey is stuck on your head.

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Ukraine's compliance had already been confirmed and verified by the DOD in May . Next excuse.

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

---

Biden has been making akward statements in public for over 40 years. The nibble on his wifes finger was a joke between them. I am familiar with the symptoms of Parkinsons, Biden shows none of them.
I would not wish such an illness on anyone, not Trump, not you. Your attribution without any knowledge speaks to your lack of character. Please put me on ignore. I'm done.

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

---

Biden has been making akward statements in public for over 40 years. The nibble on his wifes finger was a joke between them. I am familiar with the symptoms of Parkinsons, Biden shows none of them.
I would not wish such an illness on anyone, not Trump, not you. Your attribution without any knowledge speaks to your lack of character. Please put me on ignore. I'm done.

---

Biden has been touching and sniffing children for over 40 years. On camera. Please continue to cover for this POS, it shows your lack of character and ability to call things for what they truly are.

He's been able to make complete sentences for decades..in the last year he has lost his mind.

Who the **** do you think you are?

I'd advise you to stop thinking you're holier than thou
And don't you dare accuse me of wishing illness on him, I did no such thing.
All I did was say he has signs of Parkinson's and it's shameful Democrats are propping him up.

You took everything out of context to dehumanize me. If you think that's how to win arguments, think again.

Not to beat a dead horse, but James Comey and Loretta Lynch let Hillary Clinton off on numerous violations of the Espionage Act because they couldn't *prove* intent...

...Yet this entire impeachment story is build on *presumed* intent of a call for which we have the transcript.

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

---

Biden has been making akward statements in public for over 40 years. The nibble on his wifes finger was a joke between them. I am familiar with the symptoms of Parkinsons, Biden shows none of them.
I would not wish such an illness on anyone, not Trump, not you. Your attribution without any knowledge speaks to your lack of character. Please put me on ignore. I'm done.

---

Biden has been touching and sniffing children for over 40 years. On camera. Please continue to cover for this POS, it shows your lack of character and ability to call things for what they truly are.

He's been able to make complete sentences for decades..in the last year he has lost his mind.

Who the **** do you think you are?

I'd advise you to stop thinking you're holier than thou
And don't you dare accuse me of wishing illness on him, I did no such thing.
All I did was say he has signs of Parkinson's and it's shameful Democrats are propping him up.

You took everything out of context to dehumanize me. If you think that's how to win arguments, think again.

---

Doc Holliday said:

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.


You did not say signs of, you said the above. We all cross a line every once in a while, but making that statement, with no basis in fact, and allowing that to remain in this space is entirely unacceptable to me.

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

---

Biden has been making akward statements in public for over 40 years. The nibble on his wifes finger was a joke between them. I am familiar with the symptoms of Parkinsons, Biden shows none of them.
I would not wish such an illness on anyone, not Trump, not you. Your attribution without any knowledge speaks to your lack of character. Please put me on ignore. I'm done.

---

Biden has been touching and sniffing children for over 40 years. On camera. Please continue to cover for this POS, it shows your lack of character and ability to call things for what they truly are.

He's been able to make complete sentences for decades..in the last year he has lost his mind.

Who the **** do you think you are?

I'd advise you to stop thinking you're holier than thou
And don't you dare accuse me of wishing illness on him, I did no such thing.
All I did was say he has signs of Parkinson's and it's shameful Democrats are propping him up.

You took everything out of context to dehumanize me. If you think that's how to win arguments, think again.

---

Doc Holliday said:

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.


You did not say signs of, you said the above. We all cross a line every once in a while, but making that statement, with no basis in fact, and allowing that to remain in this space is entirely unacceptable to me.

---

I provided you why I believe that....because his public speaking is utter nonsense. I truly believe the guy has parkinsons. I don't have a doctor who confirmed this, but nobody running for POTUS is going to publicly admit that.

If there's nothing wrong with him...what does he mean by letting kids touch his hairy legs and then he learned about roaches?

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

---

Biden has been making akward statements in public for over 40 years. The nibble on his wifes finger was a joke between them. I am familiar with the symptoms of Parkinsons, Biden shows none of them.
I would not wish such an illness on anyone, not Trump, not you. Your attribution without any knowledge speaks to your lack of character. Please put me on ignore. I'm done.

---

Biden has been touching and sniffing children for over 40 years. On camera. Please continue to cover for this POS, it shows your lack of character and ability to call things for what they truly are.

He's been able to make complete sentences for decades..in the last year he has lost his mind.

Who the **** do you think you are?

I'd advise you to stop thinking you're holier than thou
And don't you dare accuse me of wishing illness on him, I did no such thing.
All I did was say he has signs of Parkinson's and it's shameful Democrats are propping him up.

You took everything out of context to dehumanize me. If you think that's how to win arguments, think again.

---

Doc Holliday said:

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.


You did not say signs of, you said the above. We all cross a line every once in a while, but making that statement, with no basis in fact, and allowing that to remain in this space is entirely unacceptable to me.

---

I provided you why I believe that....because his public speaking is utter nonsense. I truly believe the guy has parkinsons. I don't have a doctor who confirmed this, but nobody running for POTUS is going to publicly admit that.

If there's nothing wrong with him...what does he mean by letting kids touch his hairy legs and then he learned about roaches?

---

So you went to Google Med School, too?

Get a refund.

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Booray said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

Kyle said:

---

twd74 said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

quash said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THIS. NONE

---

---

If you think they did, can you please provide the overwhelming undeniable evidence?

---

You deny everything lobbed at Trump. There is, therefore, no "undeniable evidence", and that is not a legal standard anyway, no matter what your Google Law prof told you.

---

If you remember Racehorse Haynes, legendary Trial Attorney... He used to give the following example:
"Say you sue me because you say my dog bit you," he told the audience. "Well, now this is my defense: My dog doesn't bite. And second, in the alternative, my dog was tied up that night. And third, I don't believe you really got bit."

His final defense, he said, would be: "I don't have a dog."

Trump Defenders are approaching the 4th. option.

---

In fairness, the TDS position is: "well, I have a cousin who has a sister who dated a guy once that said the dog bit him." And if you don't believe that you're a stupid Fox News Trump lover that does not believe anything except on Rush Limbaugh!

---

The facts that we have--Trump asked for the favor. And the arms were placed on hold on the same day of the phone call. All manner of arguments have been made to counter these facts; ie., "He didn't ask for the favor" (by the WH own transcript, he did), we now know the arms were withheld, we have accounts from multiple sources that link the demands and the withholding. You can make all the counter arguments you like. If this were a trial and an independent jury was hearing the arguments, the defendent would have an orange jumpsuit in his future.

---

So we should impeach president's for requesting foreign governments comply with certain conditions to receive foreign aide? Got it. Good to know. Funny that the dude he supposedly was asked for the favor says there was not conditions - but I mean, he's not a partisan hack so we should not believe him, and he actually has direct evidence not emotion so definitely not credible.

---

Monies appropriated by Congress may have all manner of conditions to the request. When the receiving Country has been shown to be compliant with all conditions, with signoff from State to such, and when a President adds a request, and places a hold on the deal for no stated reason, when the request has no valid purpose other than to give the President a Political advantage, is it unreasonable to question whether the request is a corrupt one, and the President is abusing his office by holding funds for a corrupt purpose?

---

So let's be clear - you oppose investigation corruption?

Corruption = using the IRS to penalize groups that disagree with you, which (at least for now) is not illegal. Corruption does not = asking a foreign government to investigate potentially corrupt U.S. officials.

Do you believe we should just not investigate corruption? (Yes or No would be fine, please no predictable whataboutisms or ad homs).

---

Kyle, you really aren't as clever as you believe yourself to be.

If you don't like whatboutism, why are you bringing up Obama?

And no one in their right mind believes Donald Trump was worried about corruption in the Ukraine. He was trying to damage Joe Biden and discredit the universal conclusion that Russia was meddling in our elections to get him elected.

History will write that story because the day that he loses power, every rat on his ship will turn on him.

---

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.

You democrats are desperate to undo an election. You can't handle when Republicans win. Every waking moment of Trump's presidency is a cabal of evil democrats trying to fabricate crimes and damage.

The special counsel won you midterms. This impeachment bull**** is delaying progress.

You must hate America.

---

Which one of the Values of Baylor University call on you to baselessly attribute a horrific terminal disease to someone? You indicate you had family experience in this. You should know better.

---

Baselessly?

Are you kidding me?!

He's talking about hairy legs, roaches and kids sitting in his lap in a single unreconstructed sentence. That is most definelty a sign of Parkinson's. I can't believe you aren't calling out Democrats for USING him. Shame on you!

---

Biden has been making akward statements in public for over 40 years. The nibble on his wifes finger was a joke between them. I am familiar with the symptoms of Parkinsons, Biden shows none of them.
I would not wish such an illness on anyone, not Trump, not you. Your attribution without any knowledge speaks to your lack of character. Please put me on ignore. I'm done.

---

Biden has been touching and sniffing children for over 40 years. On camera. Please continue to cover for this POS, it shows your lack of character and ability to call things for what they truly are.

He's been able to make complete sentences for decades..in the last year he has lost his mind.

Who the **** do you think you are?

I'd advise you to stop thinking you're holier than thou
And don't you dare accuse me of wishing illness on him, I did no such thing.
All I did was say he has signs of Parkinson's and it's shameful Democrats are propping him up.

You took everything out of context to dehumanize me. If you think that's how to win arguments, think again.

---

Doc Holliday said:

Joe Biden doesn't need damage. He's a full blown Parkinson's patient.


You did not say signs of, you said the above. We all cross a line every once in a while, but making that statement, with no basis in fact, and allowing that to remain in this space is entirely unacceptable to me.

---

I provided you why I believe that....because his public speaking is utter nonsense. I truly believe the guy has parkinsons. I don't have a doctor who confirmed this, but nobody running for POTUS is going to publicly admit that.

If there's nothing wrong with him...what does he mean by letting kids touch his hairy legs and then he learned about roaches?

---

So you went to Google Med School, too?

Get a refund.

---

I know enough to diagnose you with TDS.

Get a refund.

quash said:

---

Get a refund.

---

I'm not the one trying to get a refund on the 2016 election. That's you.