Kettle meet pot

Bi-Partisan ?

And in an attempt to prove your nonsense theories correct, Donald Trump broke the law.

Pour out the kool-aid, you are supporting a coup. In my mind that makes you a traitor and anything you say is irrelevant.

A Constitutional procedure for the removal of an unfit President is called an impeachment. A coup d'etat is an extrajudicial process, which, despite your many many protests, this still isn't.

BS and off topic, like I said irrelevant.

Hahahaha not even a little bit off topic, but ignore the warning signs at your own risk.

What's the matter snowflake, getting accused of something without the ability to question it or respond suddenly seem unfair? Get over it traitor.

huh?

So guilty until proved innocent huh? I think it is possible he broke the law and this we need a full, though, and fair investigation. But we have a clown show instead by people that cannot even articulate the "crime" that Trump committed, others that assume guilt, and the removal of check that assure due process. 3f1yiz.jpg (click to show)

You've been told MANY times what the crime is - I've been part of some of those conversations. You're just being obstinate. And at some point, we just have to draw a line under it and say "alright, let's just take it to impeachment. That's where the final decision is made."

Actually no, I haven't. But thanks for the alternative facts.

Alright, one more time, and this time, listen: you know how this needs to go to a full, thorough, and fair investigation? You said it yourself, right?

Trump was told ok, give us the documents that would make this a full, thorough, and fair investigation - for transparency purposes, it's the White House's job to record and maintain them. Trump did not. That's obstruction of justice. He's obstructing the full, thorough, and fair investigation. That's THE impeachable offense.

Except that of course he did give those documents and the president doesn't personally maintain such records. And it is not what the dems are looking to impeach him for either so that would come after the impeachment started so you have thew me wrong non-crime. But you can pretend to have a catch 22 where none existence of evidence of guilt mean guilt without regard to whether the rock had blood in it in the first place, but that doesn't answer the question.

Nobody said he personally maintains them - the administration does. By all accounts, he personally arranged for the documents to be editorialized before release.

It doesn't get clearer than this. If you're a part of a trial and you get subpoenaed for evidence that the prosecution is entitled to for their discovery, and you withhold that evidence, you face criminal charges - and yeah, depending on the nature of the trial, some judges will rule that this can constitute evidence that you're hiding something. And that is as true for Trump as it would be for you. Catch-22 nothing: you cannot have a fair trial without both sides conducting a fair discovery, and if Trump interferes with that discovery, that's obstruction of justice.

The crime has now been made clear. If you want to protest further about this, call up your Congressman and try to explain to them the argument that you'd like them to make because that's the only place where it's going to matter.

No, it is not clear. You assume that the documenst should exist and if it shouldn't then nothing could be turned over not matter if the laws were followed correctly. That is not necessary failure to record, but nothing existing to record. Each time this is explained to you, you try the false catch 22 that if the document doesn't exist, a crime must have been committed, overlooking the possibility of the stone having no blood to squeeze from it.

And of course with no underlying crime to investigate, you do not get to subpoena stuff to start with as that would fall under unreasonable search and seizure. So you have failed to show the crime the impeachment process was started for.

And as it is, you have utterly failed to show an actually official accusation of this crime and my searches have come up empty, so it's just your word over and over. That isn't evidence, it's guilty until proved innocent.

Yes, by law the White House is supposed to have that document and if they don't then they're not following the laws correctly! That's what this is all about and if you think otherwise then brief your Congressman. Don't cry to me about it.

Look at its comment history, it's playing the same repetitious befuddled game with multiple memers, stating absolutely nothing about the subject being discussed but flinging/misusing the same terms which don't even apply as if they were on special as the word of the day.

I'd advise ignoring it.

Appreciated. I was burning the candle at both ends and it broke up the monotony of work a bit, but yes, this is pretty childish overall.

Yeah, Cal's Gump act is a little too overdone to be earnest.

LOL, no Adam Schiff has no duty to back up YOUR statements, as I said you have not supported YOUR claims. This is not confusion on my part, but the standard burden of proof that exist in philosophy .https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy) I didn't even ask about validity but basic information, so you are misrepresenting what I have said, and thus you have failed to articulate the actual crime you say clearly exists and thus my original statement about the ability to do so stands.

LOL, your fake catch 22 with no evidence it just you blowing smoke. Either put up the evidence that something actually happened to be recorded or you're you have no evidence whatsoever that a crime is even possible for not having the unnamed document.

Talk to your Congressman. Everything I've said is being laid out step by step and it's really not on me to convince you.

As I thought, no evidence whatsoever, rather proof by assertion on a subject I cannot even verify anyone other than you spoke on.

Verification is all in the public domain. The person you want to comment to is your Congressman at this point. Everything I've said is the case for impeachment. The case against is more your problem than mine, at this point.

You asserting that it exist is not the same as it actually existing and is not evidence If you know so much about it, you would be able to to least give a few key words at least to make searching easier than your vague comment with less effort than commenting over and over asserting that it exists. But as it is up to you to prove your own arguments, you really should provide at least a link, but sure pass the buck to someone else without enough info to even properly ask.

I am not your Congressman. It is not my job to parse your hairbrained legal defense into the impeachment proceedings.

LOL, all I asked for is basic evidence of what you are saying which the burden of proof is on you to prove your own statements. Instead your constant shifting of the proof to my congressman in terms so vague that it cannot actually be done shows me it is highly likely you do not have any actual proof to offer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

The burden of proof is on Adam Schiff. I chose to address your confusion - which willfully persists on your part - as to the validity of this case. I am burdened with nothing. You want to talk to your Congressman. The only arguments that matter at this point will be dealt with in Congress. Not by me. I am not involved.