Not Impeachment, But a Coup: a Disgusting Defense of Collapsing Imperial Order

[jmdrake]

2 mentions is the same as 1?

What do you think Pelosi thought Trump "admitted" when he called for China to investigate the Bidens?

 

[jmdrake]

She didn't say that either. Keep lying.

Mr. liar, what do you think Pelosi meant when she said Trump "admitted" to the offense by asking China to investigate the Bidens?

 

[PRB]

What do you think Pelosi thought Trump "admitted" when he called for China to investigate the Bidens?

exactly that, that he wanted Bidens investigated bu Ukraine, doesn't mean it was on a transcribed phone call.

also, trump admitting it, regardless of what he was admitting to, would mean it's additional evidence to whatever was available, so again, you cant prove she ever said the call was sufficient evidence

 

[jmdrake]

exactly that, that he wanted Bidens investigated bu Ukraine, doesn't mean it was on a transcribed phone call.

The fact that Trump wanted an investigation on the Biden's is the evidence on the Trump phone call.

also, trump admitting it, regardless of what he was admitting to, would mean it's additional evidence to whatever was available, so again, you cant prove she ever said the call was sufficient evidence

It's not additional evidence of anything new. It's the same evidence. What is missing in Trump's "admission" in his comments to China is 1) was there a quid pro quo and 2) did he think there was real corruption with regards to the Bidens? Actually the China comment goes to "Trump felt the Bidens are really corrupt" which weakens the case for impeachment.

 

[PRB]

The fact that Trump wanted an investigation on the Biden's is the evidence on the Trump phone call.

nope. his additional mentions that he wanted the investigation is additional evidence.

you're grasping at straws trying to say what Pelosi never said.

you can't admit that Pelosi NEVER EVER said the phone call was sufficient evidence of asking Ukraine to investigate Bidens, nor the phone call itself was sufficient evidence to impeach him.

Nobody has ever been asked "Is this phone call 7/25 sufficient evidence that the president broke the law" so how about you just admit nobody said that?

 

[PRB]

It's not additional evidence of anything new. It's the same evidence.

It's additional, unless you're a liar

1. China isn't Ukraine
2. The phone call didn't say investigate Bidens. so asking for investigation is a new ask.
3. Unless it's an admission of something that never happened, in which case, it's still new evidence, or an admission.

What is missing in Trump's "admission" in his comments to China is 1) was there a quid pro quo and

Nobody claims quid pro quo was required to break a law or get impeached

2) did he think there was real corruption with regards to the Bidens? Actually the China comment goes to "Trump felt the Bidens are really corrupt" which weakens the case for impeachment.

what he felt is irrelevant. he can think he's a child molester for all I care, doesn't make it true or worth making public or private statements about it.

Please don't waste time responding unless you can cite Pelosi ever once claiming that the 7/25 phone call was sufficient evidence that the President asked for an investigation into Bidens (and for the record, I want the Bidens in prison, that's the difference between me and you, I'm willing to throw the Bidens in prison without a trial, you're not willing to impeach our President even with a trial)

 

[jmdrake]

It's additional, unless you're a liar

I said it was not additional evidence of anything new. But I suppose I should add new and relevant because you are too stupid to understand that relevant was implied.

1. China isn't Ukraine

Not relevant.

2. The phone call didn't say investigate Bidens. so asking for investigation is a new ask.

Not relevant.

3. Unless it's an admission of something that never happened, in which case, it's still new evidence, or an admission.

Not relevant.

 

[PRB]

I said it was not additional evidence of anything new. But I suppose I should add new and relevant because you are too stupid to understand that relevant was implied.

Not relevant.

Not relevant.

Not relevant.

Totally relevant : new info is new info.

She NEVER EVER claimed the phone call contained all sufficient evidence that Trump committed a crime or was worth of impeachment. EVER.

Try again when you can prove she said it.

Please don't waste time responding unless you can cite Pelosi ever once claiming that the 7/25 phone call was sufficient evidence that the President asked for an investigation into Bidens (and for the record, I want the Bidens in prison, that's the difference between me and you, I'm willing to throw the Bidens in prison without a trial, you're not willing to impeach our President even with a trial)

 

[PRB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGUeZx_U-aM