In light of the mounting evidence, Trump's impeachment is a foregone conclusion.

"Verifyable" fact ? You do mean "verifiable"? Your literacy is about on a par with your reasoning. The claims you make are pretty much straight out of Rudy Giuliani's rear end. While you go on about the elevation of those to positions that they neither have the ability or experience for (which is probably most corporate directorships) you might look no further than "the 12-year old" in the Oval Office. Or, no doubt, your own life experience.

#4 is absolute bullsh*t. Please provide a link that makes you believe Biden said that. It wasn't in the video. #1 and #2 are irrelevant and #3 had nothing to do with Biden.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

#4 is absolute bullsh*t. Please provide a link that makes you believe Biden said that. It wasn't in the video. #1 and #2 are irrelevant and #3 had nothing to do with Biden.

Biden demanded they fire the prosecutor. He now says the prosecutor was not going after his son or the company. There are other opinions on that.

ReallybroReally wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

#4 is absolute bullsh*t. Please provide a link that makes you believe Biden said that. It wasn't in the video. #1 and #2 are irrelevant and #3 had nothing to do with Biden.

Biden demanded they fire the prosecutor. He now says the prosecutor was not going after his son or the company. There are other opinions on that.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/27/flashback_2018_joe_biden_brags_at_cfr_meeting_about_withholding_aid_to_ukraine_to_force_firing_of_prosecutor.htmlhttps://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story

You're implying it now, but you previously stated, as a fact, that Biden said he pressured Ukraine to end an investigation into Hunter.

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You're implying it now, but you previously stated, as a fact, that Biden said he pressured Ukraine to end an investigation into Hunter.

Where, exactly, did I say that?????

Hint. I am not "Well, there this though". That is someone else.

Biden wanted the prosecutor dropped because he WASN'T going after the company. Biden wanted that company investigated. That is why the Republican claim here has been debunked multiple times.

zxcvxzcv wrote:

Biden wanted the prosecutor dropped because he WASN'T going after the company. Biden wanted that company investigated. That is why the Republican claim here has been debunked multiple times.

I believe Biden wanted corruption reduced in general. I doubt if he even considered Burisma.

ReallybroReally wrote:

SDSU Aztec wrote:

You're implying it now, but you previously stated, as a fact, that Biden said he pressured Ukraine to end an investigation into Hunter.

Where, exactly, did I say that?????

Hint. I am not "Well, there this though". That is someone else.

Yeah, wrong poster. Sorry.

Personal attacks means you are frustrated.

Who is Democrats?

There are 435 congresspersons with 435 unique U.S. Congressional Districts. If you lack the intellect to tell the difference between Maxine Waters and Nancy Pelosi, I am simply responding to you to communicate over your head. Did numerous Democrats know T R U M P violated campaign finances laws? I guess members of G.O.P. did not know T R U M P used campaign money to pay off a Playboy centerfold model and G.O.P. did not know T R U M P used campaign funds pay off Stephanie Clifford, an adult film actress. Somehow Democrats know that Hope Hicks knows and Don McGahn knows T R U M P conspired with Russia. You will respond to state Mueller did not recommend prosecution of T R U M P regarding conspiring with Russians. Fussing with me is your stress reliever I guess. You know there will be multiple Articles of Impeachment sent to U.S. Senate. Stay tuned!

"Mr Trump and his supporters allege Mr Biden abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian energy company."

"But these allegations have been widely discredited. There is no evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden."

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Mr Trump and his supporters allege Mr Biden abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian energy company."

"But these allegations have been widely discredited. There is no evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden."

You can't determine whether or not there is "evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son" until you have the investigation. That's the point of the investigation, wise guy.

My 2cts wrote:

afadfasd wrote:

Well, we are talking about trump supporters - who think global warming is a Chinese hoax and that the Chinese pay for tarrifs and trump is going to magically stop factories from automating.

Trump supporters = either advanced idiots or evil

They are not evil.

Thats fine but wrote:

laugh out loud wrote:

LOL! I can think of another individual who has no credentials qualifying them to be in quite a position of power. Zero experience, zero knowledge of anything at hand, nothing. Said person has been known as a corrupt shyster for most of their existence. I'll give you 1 guess who I am talking about.

LOL, man the irony of some of you idiots is really great. I love coming here. So amusing.

You may be right, but he was elected by the people. Biden was simply hooked up. Bigly difference. Sorry you are too stupid to see that.

Here’s a comparison that actually works since you seem to miss the obvious.

Was Trumps daughter and son in law elected or hooked up?

Speaking of hooked up.

Members of G.O.P. who know impeachment is inevitable, want Speaker Pelosi to hurry up and send the case to U.S. Senate for a quick T R U M P victory. There are members of D.N.C. who want Speaker Pelosi to hurry up and send the case to U.S. Senate so candidates can get going with Iowa Caucus. Speaker Pelosi is communicating in a manner as to not inflame matters. Speaker Pelosi knows there has only been two impeachment trials for U.S. Presidents. Speaker Pelosi will present the best case possible. Best case possible will take some time, maybe several months. Best case means T R U M P's personal & corporate tax records. Best case means T R U M P's personal & corporate bank & investment records, globally. Washington farmer guy, why are you worried about one Ukraine phone call? Look at the previous two U.S. President impeachment trials. Multiple articles of impeachment. Impeachment of Andrew Johnson had over a dozen articles of impeachment, if I correctly recall. Farmer guy, you worrying about Biden family is not going to prevent an impeachment trial. D.N.C. is considering adding another moderate candidate if D.N.C. needs to dump Joe Biden. This impeachment trial is bigger than Joe Biden and his living son. Democrats will consider 51+ U.S. Senators voting to impeach T R U M P a victory.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

"Mr Trump and his supporters allege Mr Biden abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian energy company."

"But these allegations have been widely discredited. There is no evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden."

You can't determine whether or not there is "evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son" until you have the investigation. That's the point of the investigation, wise guy.

You need evidence to support the requirement of an investigation. No one has come up with any. You should go back to turning the sods on your farm. That you understand.

Armstronglivs wrote:

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

You can't determine whether or not there is "evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son" until you have the investigation. That's the point of the investigation, wise guy.

You need evidence to support the requirement of an investigation. No one has come up with any. You should go back to turning the sods on your farm. That you understand.

And accepting government hand outs, now that something he and his old man really know about.

Hamilton Hand-outs they call them wrote:

And accepting government hand outs, now that something he and his old man really know about.

We were massively underpaid for the land the government took from us to build the highway you drive on. You're welcome.

Armstronglivs wrote:

You need evidence to support the requirement of an investigation.

You don't actually. All you need is reason to be suspicious.

Farmer in Chehalis, Washington wrote:

Hamilton Hand-outs they call them wrote:

And accepting government hand outs, now that something he and his old man really know about.

We were massively underpaid for the land the government took from us to build the highway you drive on. You're welcome.

You took the money happily, hand out welfare queens.