Why did NAncy Pelosi just State a blatant fallacy ?

hislegacy said:

There was only one fact witness Sondland. And the only facts he stated was that the President said he didn’t want anything and there should be no quid pro quo.

everything else was hearsay. Something someone delft, or heard from someone else.

the facts are contested
The hearsay is contested and
The impeachment itself is contested as witnessed by how many votes against the inquiry. Including two Democrats.

The uncontested line is in deed a blatant fallacy.

Click to expand...

What facts are contested?

hislegacy said:

She just stated on national media that the Impeachment is uncontested.

Every hearsay accusation, which is the entirety has been constructed every day and then there is the 123 page document from the Republicans contesting the whole proceedure

Click to expand...

Politicians are corrupt, they are in it for themselves, they lie, and if they say, or, do anything it's because it benefits them. We will probably never know why she said what she did, but she benefited in some way for saying what she did.

They care nothing about you

iluvatar5150 said:

What facts are contested?

Click to expand...

Please list the facts that need to be contested.

Original Happy Camper said:

Please list the facts that need to be contested.

Click to expand...

I can't think of any facts that need to be contested, but then, I'm not the one who claimed that any of them are being contested.

Gaetz is one of the people whose complaints about the impeachment process sound like they talk through their emotions - asking questions and making statements that are clearly intended to make the witnesses sound like liars during the impeachment hearings. Democrats, meanwhile, asked questions from both the liberal and conservative points of view, not giving away a preference either way in their question choices. I have no idea how anybody could watch the hearings and NOT notice the difference.

Original Happy Camper said:

Please list the facts that need to be contested.

Click to expand...

Trump asking for a favor from the Ukrainians.

Trump withholding military aid from the Ukrainians.

Trump using his personal lawyer to set up and take care of the deal.

Trump removing and vilifying the ambassador that would have stood in his way and replacing her with an unqualified successor that paid his way into his position.

Said replacement ambassador testifying that key people (who are ignoring subpoenas) were well aware of what was happening and that the deal was understood to be contingent on the investigations Trump requested.

hislegacy said:

listen to every opening statement from every one of the proceedings from the minority leader. And you will hear every one of the proceedings being contested.

Click to expand...

Every single one is a bunch of lies out of the representative's mouth. Devin Nunes was directly involved in this, so there is proof he lied by saying there is no evidence.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Said replacement ambassador testifying that key people (who are ignoring subpoenas) were well aware of what was happening and that the deal was understood to be contingent on the investigations Trump requested.

Click to expand...

The only reason they are ignoring their subpoenas is Trump told them to.

And don't forget the location of the full transcript, combined with only an edited summary being released, is proof he is obstructing the people who need to see quid pro quo from doing so.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Trump removing and vilifying the ambassador that would have stood in his way and replacing her with an unqualified successor that paid his way into his position.

Click to expand...

Point of clarification: Sondland is the ambassador to the EU, not Ukraine. I don't believe that Trump has named a replacement for Yovanovitch yet.

ChristianForCats said:

The only reason they are ignoring their subpoenas is Trump told them to.

And don't forget the location of the full transcript, combined with only an edited summary being released, is proof he is obstructing the people who need to see quid pro quo from doing so.

Click to expand...

Correct. I purposely left out all the obvious evidence of Trump blatantly obstructing Congress so our friends on the right can focus on contesting the facts that brought the impeachment to the forefront in the first place.

RocksInMyHead said:

Point of clarification: Sondland is the ambassador to the EU, not Ukraine. I don't believe that Trump has named a replacement for Yovanovitch yet.

Click to expand...

Ah, thank you. You are correct that Sondland was not Yovanovitch’s replacement but as I understand it he did take over the matter related to Trump’s request of Zelenski and the Ukrainians.

hislegacy said:

She just stated on national media that the Impeachment is uncontested.

Every hearsay accusation, which is the entirety has been constructed every day and then there is the 123 page document from the Republicans contesting the whole proceedure

Click to expand...

Looks like you are the one “stating a blatant fallacy,” Nancy Pelosi didn’t even say that!

GoldenBoy89 said:

Trump asking for a favor from the Ukrainians.

Trump withholding military aid from the Ukrainians.

Trump using his personal lawyer to set up and take care of the deal.

Trump removing and vilifying the ambassador that would have stood in his way and replacing her with an unqualified successor that paid his way into his position.

Said replacement ambassador testifying that key people (who are ignoring subpoenas) were well aware of what was happening and that the deal was understood to be contingent on the investigations Trump requested.

Click to expand...

Trump asking for a favor from the Ukrainians.
Ukraine president: 'No blackmail' in conversation with Trump
Ukraine president: 'No blackmail' in conversation with Trump

Trump withholding military aid from the Ukrainians.

In August, Congress approved $250 million in military aid to Ukraine, which has been fighting a hot war with Russia since 2014. But at the end of August, Politico reported that the Trump administration seemed to be "slow-walking" that military assistance. Congressional Democrats and Republicans criticized the White House for delaying delivery of that funding. The administration released its hold on those funds and extended an additional $140 million, according to Ukraine's president, in the second week of September. The White House did not report the additional funds in its announcement that it released the hold on military aid.

Why did Trump withhold military aid from Ukraine?

Trump using his personal lawyer to set up and take care of the deal.

What deal?

Trump removing and vilifying the ambassador that would have stood in his way and replacing her with an unqualified successor that paid his way into his position.

Not impeachable issues
Ambassadors as Presidential appointees serve "at the pleasure of the President" and can be dismissed at any time for any reason. In reality many are career State Department employees, and will serve until they are needed somewhere else or they want a stateside assignment for family reasons, etc. The others are political appointees and usually will serve as long as they want or until there is a new president.

Said replacement ambassador testifying that key people (who are ignoring subpoenas) were well aware of what was happening and that the deal was understood to be contingent on the investigations Trump requested.

hearsay no direct testomony

RocksInMyHead said:

Point of clarification: Sondland is the ambassador to the EU, not Ukraine. I don't believe that Trump has named a replacement for Yovanovitch yet.

Click to expand...

Didn't Sondland say he was Yovonavitch's replacement?

Sparagmos said:

Looks like you are the one “stating a blatant fallacy,” Nancy Pelosi didn’t even say that!

Click to expand...

I don't know why this is such a big deal that she alleged lied. After all, no one is sinless. Besides, all politicians lie. Seriously, show me a perfect one! Just look at so and so Republican. I'm sure the sins of that Republican are much worse than her sins. In any case, I doubt any of the politicians who voted for her did so because she's a choir girl. I'm sure they voted for a Speaker of the House, not a Pastor.

(Yes, my post is complete satire. I'm pointing that out in case it isn't obvious to some members).

There's no such thing as uncontested facts.

People right here contest the fact of a flat earth all the time.

hislegacy said:

There are no facts

Click to expand...

There are no facts whatsoever? Is none of it real?

Maybe Trump isn’t even the President and we’ve all been stressing out over nothing.

durangodawood said:

There's no such thing as uncontested facts.

People right here contest the fact of a flat earth all the time.

Click to expand...

The people who say that are liars, just like everyone else. The fact that the earth is round was proven, so you can use that as an example of what Republicans are doing when they lie about the lack of evidence in this investigation. Proof beyond doubt is known to exist in several locations. Republicans know it and only want to stop the impeachment process.

hislegacy said:

There are no facts, it’s all hearsay and that it plain to see.

Wanna move them that goal posts again?I can’t think of any facts.

Click to expand...

If there were no facts, there would be no phone call transcript, text messages, emails, and documents for the House of Representatives to look at. There would be no first-hand testimonies. We have seen proof of wrongdoing in all of those forms.