The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Zombie]

Holy ****, I've cracked the case! Rupert Murdoch is also on the international advisory board for the Atlantic Council. This just got way bigger than any of us could possibly have imagined.

 

[Zombie]

speaking of spam and making the forum unreadable, your posts. You’re either poorly informed or lying. I’m going to be optimistic and believe you’re only stupid. Let’s dig in!

1. A simple google search reveals that you got your information from Breitbart, one of the worst news sources out there. But what can you expect? You consume garbage so expect your writing to be garbage. Garbage in garbage out.

2. Breitbart relies on stupid people reading their headlines and not actually reading anything else. Nice job in proving them right.

3. Your stupidity in not reading beyond the headline or knowing anything about the Atlantic Council, makes for poorly informed posts.



Let’s read up on who and what the Atlantic Council is, shall we?



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Council

The Atlantic Council has a pretty good nonpartisan record. And even though Burisma donated to them, their donation wasn’t outrageously significant. Especially when you can actually look up donors and how much their biggest donors actually donate. But even if it were significant, why would that matter? The staffer didn’t work on behalf of Burisma, but for the AC.

https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/support-the-council/honor-roll-of-contributors/

But there is one faction which hates this group. Now who would hate a Think Tank whose mission is to improve trade between western Atlantic countries? Who would hate such a pro-NATO organization? Pretty obvious, right?



https://www.rt.com/russia/465086-atlantic-council-russia-undesirable/

So I guess my question to some of you, @Jazzta, why do you do what you’re doing? I get that you trolls are just seeking attention. But you are willingly and perhaps wittingly or unwittingly, spewing Russian propaganda nearly on a daily basis on this site. It’s pretty obvious too. Your nonstop attack on reliable news sources and regurgitation of debunked theories and lies, doesn’t make you look smart or independent. It makes you look stupid. Just as @Gameface pointed out, you’re showing to be the dumbest and most poorly informed posters out there.

The sources you’re using to obtain information isn’t doing yourselves any good. It’s definitely not informing anyone. And all you’re doing is serving an autocrats disinformation campaign against the west.

I love how these chuckleheads can't be sure about Trumps quid pro quo with Ukraine, and are aghast whenever anyone makes any straightforward inferences into his motivations, but are immediately convinced there's a conspiracy going on on the other side based on the most flimsy connections imaginable.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Holy ****, I've cracked the case! Rupert Murdoch is also on the international advisory board for the Atlantic Council. This just got way bigger than any of us could possibly have imagined.

Let me lay this out for you very politely and slow so you can see the picture clearly. Then you are free to take from it what you like, and that will tell us where your motives lie.

Burisma signed an agreement with Atlantic.
Atlantic paid Peter Schiff's guy to go to Ukraine. Not some other related think tank business, but Ukraine business.
Immediately after this trip, a Burisma link Ukrainian suggests to Sondland that there is quid pro quo, not other way around.
Immediately after this, Peter Schiff and them start leaking Trump Ukraine stuff.
The whistleblower is buddy buddy with said guy above. They all form this tidy little tangled web.

So you want to claim that because money is fungible that Burisma paying Atlantic to pay the whistleblower team to travel to Ukraine and then break this story was somehow not Burisma paying Peter Schiff's squad? That's as laughable and disingenuous as it gets, and you know it Zombie.

 

[Zombie]

Burisma signed an agreement with Atlantic.
Atlantic paid Peter Schiff's guy to go to Ukraine. Not some other related think tank business, but Ukraine business

Burisma and the AC made this agreement in 2017, why are you presenting these two facts as if they're connected?

The AC sent a number of staffers of their Eurasian center on this trip, which was planned way back in May. Your time line is starting to fall apart here.

Immediately after this trip, a Burisma link Ukrainian suggests to Sondland that there is quid pro quo, not other way around.
Immediately after this, Peter Schiff and them start leaking Trump Ukraine stuff.

Which Burisma linked individual are you talking about, and how is he linked? Why does it matter that this Ukrainian brought up the issue of the quid pro quo?

Again, his name is Adam Schiff, and you have no evidence he nor his office is behind the leaks.

So you want to claim that because money is fungible that Burisma paying Atlantic to pay the whistleblower team to travel to Ukraine and then break this story was somehow not Burisma paying Peter Schiff's squad? That's as laughable and disingenuous as it gets, and you know it Zombie

I'm claiming that AC's interest in Ukraine doesn't begin or end with Burisma, and you're positing conjecture, like that the trip to Ukraine was on behalf of Burisma, as if it's a fact without any evidence. Par for the course really.

 

[fishonjazz]

Let me lay this out for you very politely and slow so you can see the picture clearly. Then you are free to take from it what you like, and that will tell us where your motives lie.

Burisma signed an agreement with Atlantic.
Atlantic paid Peter Schiff's guy to go to Ukraine. Not some other related think tank business, but Ukraine business.
Immediately after this trip, a Burisma link Ukrainian suggests to Sondland that there is quid pro quo, not other way around.
Immediately after this, Peter Schiff and them start leaking Trump Ukraine stuff.
The whistleblower is buddy buddy with said guy above. They all form this tidy little tangled web.

So you want to claim that because money is fungible that Burisma paying Atlantic to pay the whistleblower team to travel to Ukraine and then break this story was somehow not Burisma paying Peter Schiff's squad? That's as laughable and disingenuous as it gets, and you know it Zombie.

I think we should respect the office regardless of who wins but didn't want him to respect it with Trump, think they should impeach him for illegally paying off hookers with campaign money, think he deserves to be impeached for his racist go back to where they came from remark about some congresswomen, and even believe he is most likely guilty of trying to bribe Ukraine even if it cannot be proven - Franklin

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

Burisma and the AC made this agreement in 2017, why are you presenting these two facts as if they're connected?

The AC sent a number of staffers of their Eurasian center on this trip, which was planned way back in May. Your time line is starting to fall apart here.


Which Burisma linked individual are you talking about, and how is he linked? Why does it matter that this Ukrainian brought up the issue of the quid pro quo?

Again, his name is Adam Schiff, and you have no evidence he nor his office is behind the leaks.


I'm claiming that AC's interest in Ukraine doesn't begin or end with Burisma, and you're positing conjecture, like that the trip to Ukraine was on behalf of Burisma, as if it's a fact without any evidence. Par for the course really.

Nobody is surprised you automatically brush aside facts and pretend they don't exist. Guess what, the American people aren't buying your spin. Where there is smoke there is fire.

It's always amusing when people buy the line one side is pushing hook, line and sinker. The sad thing is they really believe there isn't any other motive driving the DNC or any gamesmanship going on behind the scenes. Well, wake up and smell the roses buddy, politicians are out to get reelected and win the battle for national control. They are ten moves ahead of you and I, and set this political theater up for all of us to view. Some of you have suspended disbelief but fortunately the rest of us see the show for what it is, and are trying to get to the bottom of it and make sense of it all in spite of all the noise from the sheep clogging the lanes.

 

[idestroyedthetoilet]

I'm claiming that AC's interest in Ukraine doesn't begin or end with Burisma, and you're positing conjecture, like that the trip to Ukraine was on behalf of Burisma, as if it's a fact without any evidence. Par for the course really.

You don't find it the tiniest bit odd or a conflict of interest at best and a serious national security threat on the worse end that staffers are working with NGO's, meeting with our ambassadors overseas not on behalf of the US government but some other organization, and with foreign dignitaries? Hmm, nothing could possibly go wrong there, they'll manage that huge conflict in the best interests of the United States instead of their own right?

Peter Schiff has surrounded himself with I'll advised ties to Ukraine and needs to answer. March him in front of the Senate right behind Joe and Hunter Biden, Hillary Clinton, and everyone at the DNC who rigged the election and gave us Trump.

 

[fishonjazz]

Nobody is surprised you automatically brush aside facts and pretend they don't exist. Guess what, the American people aren't buying your spin. Where there is smoke there is fire.

You said this though: I think they should impeach him for illegally paying off hookers with campaign money, think he deserves to be impeached for his racist go back to where they came from remark about some congresswomen, and even believe he is most likely guilty of trying to bribe Ukraine even if it cannot be proven


I guess you bought the spin. Where there is smoke there is fire.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Zombie]

Nobody is surprised you automatically brush aside facts and pretend they don't exist. Guess what, the American people aren't buying your spin. Where there is smoke there is fire.

In fact I provided additional facts you left out, and asked for further clarification on other points which you ignored.

Clearly you aren't engaging in good faith, back on ignore you go.

 

[Zombie]

You don't find it the tiniest bit odd or a conflict of interest at best and a serious national security threat on the worse end that staffers are working with NGO's, meeting with our ambassadors overseas not on behalf of the US government but some other organization, and with foreign dignitaries?

This is neither unusual or remarkable.

 

[Hotdog]

In fact I provided additional facts you left out, and asked for further clarification on other points which you ignored.

Clearly you aren't engaging in good faith, back on ignore you go.

Weak sauce. You dont argue in good faith. Facts

Your answer is to go to your safe space?

Lmao

 

[Harambe]

As usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Corruption, obstruction, what do you think of this?:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...est_its_in_the_national_security_council.html

There is a legal scholar saying what Trump is alleged to have done is legal.

As usual, I have no idea what you are trying to say. Corruption, obstruction, what do you think of this?:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/v...est_its_in_the_national_security_council.html

There is a legal scholar saying what Trump is alleged to have done is legal.

I think you've just asked me what I think of a mainstream media article.

Weren't you just bitching about mainstream media?