Quote from: Viper1 on October 22, 2019, 03:49:09 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 22, 2019, 03:27:02 AM

If you weren't too broke to, I would tell you to pay closer attention. I am talking about the phone call. No, it isn't debatable, here are the documents:

You're not talking about the phone call specifically. You're putting up a smoke screen for the sheep.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 22, 2019, 03:27:02 AM

'The U.S. government had open-source intelligence and was aware as early as February of 2019 that the Ukrainian government was planning to reopen the Burisma investigation, Solomon said.

Given his past and the "quality" of what he writes in terms of misleading, obfuscating the like, I don't put much credence in what Solomon may say all on it's own. He's just the typical "fake news" person who's intent is to convince sheep to a certain bias. Like you apparently.

Besides that, it's all just a smoke screen to try and distract from what was said in the phone call. Trump clearly said if you want more stuff, you need to do this for me/us. So none of what you're saying or posting is applicable. Even his own spokesperson said it was a quid pro quo and he also said they held back aid by the way. Until it can at least be agreed on that Trump's call was a quid pro quo, the discussion cannot move onto the other issue of whether or not it was specifically for political gain or for other interests.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 22, 2019, 03:27:02 AM

Again, are you trying to say Trump some how got high level officials from several agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript you claims exists?

I said if they produce a 100% "accurate" one, then one has to wonder if it's been "faked" or not given all the lies and crap that's been going on in the WH. But until it happens, if ever, it's a moot point. Are you so derange in your worship of dear leader that you have reading comprehension issues?

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 22, 2019, 03:27:02 AM

You just got done arguing a subpoena is not the same as a legal document

I'm not done but I don't have the time right now to respond to your long drivel that contained nothing factual. Despite all the documentation I've given you that explains congressional subpoenas, you've shown yourself to either be too dense to get it, or you simply want to spread bullshit for the sheep.

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 22, 2019, 03:27:02 AM

Also I love the fat that you mirror my language calling you a parrot as you literally accuse me of being a parrot in the same breath.

I figure that one needs to use you're own form of discussion for it to ever sink into your head.

So you get to tell me what I am saying now? Well since we are speaking for each other...

Quote from: Viper1 on October 22, 2019, 03:49:09 AM

I really like donkey dicks!

What EXACTLY has Solomon published before that you consider "fake news"? Don't just make a character attack then not back any of it up, that is pathetic and lazy. You just declaring very relevant facts such as the investigation being reopened before the call, and that Ukraine had no idea the funds were withheld are not applicable doesn't wave a magic wand over them and make it true. You aren't making any arguments, you are just repeating your position and telling me I am wrong and you are right like a true mental midget. You aren't wondering, you are declaring it a fake based on zero evidence. I ask again, do you really believe he some how got all of these agencies to lie for him and cover up some other transcript? There were lots of people listening to that call...

You claimed congressional subpoenas were not legal documents, and now you are just claiming I provided no evidence when I clearly provided an example of past congressional subpoenas and compared them to the letters requesting information they are calling "subpoenas" and proved they are in fact not actual subpoenas. If you had even the most rudimentary knowledge of law you would know this, but all you have are character attacks, parrot vomit, and denials.