Why did NAncy Pelosi just State a blatant fallacy ?

[hislegacy]

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

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Crying “Nuh-uh!” at every bit of evidence brought against the President doesn’t count.

 

[A Realist]

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

Source.....or it didn't happen.

 

[lasthero]

Because she saw Trump doing it so much and she thought it looked like fun?

 

[tulc]

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

...did I miss where you posted a link in support of this?

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

see post #2.
And in answer to the headline: "So far? No one has shown it is a lie.".
tulc(thinks that covers the OP)

 

[iluvatar5150]

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

She didn't say that "impeachment is uncontested". She said that "The facts are uncontested." AFAIK, she's correct. I don't recall any Republicans contesting the facts of the case; I've only seen them contest the conclusions derived from those facts.

So, to answer the question you posed in the thread title - she didn't lie. You misheard or misunderstood her and didn't bother to check the transcript before accusing of something.

 

[Albion]

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

I'm reluctant to say that there is some strategy behind it since she often says things that leave everyone shaking their heads and saying "Whaaaaat??"

 

[GodLovesCats]

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

She told the complete truth. All Republicans are doing is telling obvious lies.

 

[hislegacy]

Source.....or it didn't happen.

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security,”

Nancy Pelosi pushes ahead with impeachment of Trump: ‘I don’t hate anyone’

 

[hislegacy]

She told the complete truth. All Republicans are doing is telling obvious lies.

no, she didn’t. It is not uncontested. Even yesterday one of three contested the proceedings.

it is a blatant fallacy

 

[A Realist]

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security,”

Nancy Pelosi pushes ahead with impeachment of Trump: ‘I don’t hate anyone’

OK, but she didn't say what you said she did in your OP.

This is why you should source your claims from the get-go.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security,”

Nancy Pelosi pushes ahead with impeachment of Trump: ‘I don’t hate anyone’

She’s right.

What Trump did (and continues to do in regards to the proceedings) was and is an obvious abuse of power. It’s something only the president can do because of the power and unique position he has and it is designed to benefit him personally.

The best defense mounted against the evidence so far has been: Nuh-uh!

 

[hislegacy]

She didn't say that "impeachment is uncontested". She said that "The facts are uncontested." AFAIK, she's correct. I don't recall any Republicans contesting the facts of the case; I've only seen them contest the conclusions derived from those facts.

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.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

no, she didn’t. It is not uncontested. Even yesterday one of three contested the proceedings.

it is a blatant fallacy

The proceedings. Not the evidence.

 

[hislegacy]

She’s right.

What Trump did (and continues to do in regards to the proceedings) was and is an obvious abuse of power. It’s something only the president can do because of the power and unique position he has and it is designed to benefit him personally.

The best defense mounted against the evidence so far has been: Nuh-uh!

only if you only watch one news source.

every witness including the four scholars yesterday were given the opportunity to point to an action of the President that was bribery, Quid Pro Quo or illegal.

not one witness has testified in the affirmative. Not one.

even Sondland trait I died that he came to his conclusion based on a presumption and NOT from anything he witnessed the President doing or saying.

Solndalnd testified under oath that Schiff and CNN were incorrect in what they said.

to wit:

Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz)
12/5/19, 12:44 PM
pic.twitter.com/f9t8KA9Wae

from just yesterday.

 

[Original Happy Camper]

“The facts are uncontested. The president abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security,”

Nancy Pelosi pushes ahead with impeachment of Trump: ‘I don’t hate anyone’

I guess that it happened

Apologies do not expect.

 

[GodLovesCats]

No, she didn’t. It is not uncontested. Even yesterday one of three contested the proceedings.

it is a blatant fallacy

Show me uncontested proof the Republicans never lied a single time in those 123 pages.

 

[hislegacy]

Show me uncontested proof the Republicans never lied a single time in those 123 pages.

you want me to show you something that didn’t happen?

Rep. Matt Gaetz (@RepMattGaetz)
12/5/19, 12:44 PM
pic.twitter.com/f9t8KA9Wae

how about this from yesterday?

 

[hislegacy]

The proceedings. Not the evidence.

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.

Next

 

[Hank77]

no, she didn’t. It is not uncontested. Even yesterday one of three contested the proceedings.

it is a blatant fallacy

Yesterday, Jonathan Turley said that they were moving too fast. He believes that they should go to court to force the testimony of subpoenaed witnesses that Trump has forbidden to testify, and for the subpoenaed documents that Trump refuses to turn over. Why? Because he doesn't believe their case is strong enough to remove the President from office, not because what they have isn't valid.
There was another point he made that I won't go into but it is the exact opposite from what he said when he testified at Bill Clinton's impeachment hearing.