Just found this gem of a post! Any re-occurance?
Donald Trump
- Thread starter wez130
- Start date
- Status
Accept for that’s not true on two counts. First it was not a good video for the reasons I stated before. 2nd I didn’t ignore Plasmahal as I watched the video and directly responded to that video post with my own counter points.
My 3rd point is, if you look at the chain of events. I asked Plasmahal valid reasonable debate questions. Plasmahal ignored my valid reasonable questions and points only to post that unrelated video as a deflection so they wouldn't have to answer. They know the video was already invalidated by recent evidence which I had pointed out to them. I asked my question again in a clear precisely none aggressive way giving Plasmahal every chance to debate in good faith. What did he do? He ignored everything again and posted another unrelated video as a poor attempt at deflection. I also responded to that new video and he ignored me again only to go on and post some lies about me that he completely made up. Which I called him out on and he ignored.
If you look at the chain of events fairly and objectively I was debating in good faith while Plasmahal was deflecting, being dishonest by making up false statements while ignoring reasonable debate questions and reasonable questions. I also provide Plasmahal with evidence to back up my reasons which again like most facts and evidence they ignored.
So yes I can honestly say I was debating in good faith. Unlike Plasmahal who cannot say they where debating in good faith otherwise they would have responded to my reasonable debate questions and fair counter points instead they only lied and posted deflections.
Why wasn't it a good video?
If i remember correctly, your counter point was because of Lev Parnas. It was like one sentence long, hardly countering what 2 constitutional lawyers are saying, is it?
Think about it logically. The impeachment had already happened, before Lev Parnas. Do you honestly think you know more about the constitution than those 2?
Jonathen Turley is another one to listen to.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
Because it doesn’t fit the narrative
Quite.
I had a quick google the other day, i couldn't really find any public lawyers who's domain is constitutional law who agree with the impeachment. Maybe someone knows one, but the quick google i did, i couldn't find any decent articles supporting the impeachment
1st It wasn’t good because it didn’t answer a single one of my questions directed at Plasmahal. It was completely unrelated to the points we were debating and it looks like the only reason Plasmahal posted it was deflection to avoid responding to me in good faith. This is the main reason it wasn't good.
2nd it was basically a big advert for two people to sell books to make money.
3rd it was recorded before the Lev Parnas evidence came out and a lot of the defense points by the older guy defending Trump especially at the start was invalidated by that evidence. I am thinking about it logically, if the older guy defending Trump know about the Lev Parnas evidence before he made the video he wouldn't have mentioned a lot of defense points he did, as he would have known they would not be valid. Some of what he said was correct at the time but is now invalid due to new evidence.
You are right it was recorded before the Lev Parnas evidence and that evidence showed some of the narrative being used in the video was false and a lie.
The impeachment had already happened before Lev Parnas. Why had the impeachment already happened if the Lev Parnas evidence was the smoking gun? If the Lev Parnas evidence was before impeachment, why wasn't it known?
Also, what points are you talking about regarding the video? You're very vague.
And what about Jonathen Turley? The only lawyer who specialises in constitutional law in the pre impeachment hearings, he was also against it.
You think 2 lawyers who are at the top the game would sacrifice their reputation just to sell some books? Seems unlikely eh.
Last edited:
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,730
- Location
- Auckland
This is without doubt the worst thread on the entire forums right now. Even worse than my content which is verging on the unbelievable.
At the time of the impeachment the Lev Parnas evidence was not known about in detail. Like a lot of evidence Trump and his inner circle are trying to suppress evidence and hide the truth. If you recall back when Plasmahal was shouting about the Dems delays handing over the impeachment papers and why would they do that. I pointed out the likely reason was due to ongoing cases that will release new information and evidence.
The House Intelligence Committee issued a request that Parnas produce documents for their review. Lev said he is now prepared to comply with requests for records and testimony from congressional impeachment investigators. He then turned over all his photos, text messages and thousands of pages of documents including hand written notes. Which showed extra crimes on top of the impeachment case which was why Ukrainian opened up their own official investigation into Trumps illegal activity like the illegal stalking of the ambassador and the illegal pre mediated pressure Trump was putting on Ukrainian.
Wasn’t that before the new evidence came out? What are his views after the Lev bombshells? Has it changed? I have not seen anything from him since that new evidence came out and who knows how that changed is opinion.
Well I didn’t say anything about sacrificing their reputations but it’s clear one of the main reason for that video was for both of them to sell new books and increase sales. To me they seemed motivated by money and profit.
It’s a bit late for me to rewatch the entire video and go over it point by point but one example is the older guy defending Trump at the start of the video talks about the impeachment is not valid as there is no direct evidence, no direct witness's, no crimes committed. But the Lev evidences changes all that as it has direct evidence with direct first hand witness and illegal stalking which is a high crime invalidating his reasons for that defense. His entire defense and view point continuing into the video was built on what has turned out to be a false premises.
Last edited:
Jonathan Turleys views haven't changed. He did an article in The Hill recently if i recall.
I don't know how you can get that from the video, that they are there to sell books and make money, the amount of money they make from those books will pale in comparison to what they are worth. Doesn't sound very logical to me.
The impeachment was on the basis of a quid quo pro, not stalking. How does that tie in exactly? What has the stalking got to do with Ukraine? Those Lev Parnas texts, did you read all of them? did you not find it odd that the US ambassador was being protected by the Russian FSB?
Last edited:
Donald Trump. I was going to put a smiley there, but I realised it's not funny. At least our buffoon is competent with English.
Trump and Johnson. Bloody hell, what a time. Those two getting elected in free elections shows how bad the opposition is.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2010
- Posts
- 53,739
- Location
- Welling, London
Or how the population yearns for change
Which is one of the (many) ways in which the opposition is bad. It's not the main explanation in the UK - Jeremy Corbyn et alia would have resulted in more of a change than Boris Johnson - but I think you're definitely right concerning the USA.
Have you seen Jonathan Pie's video about Trump being elected? It's a masterwork of political commentary and comedy and I think he's spot on about the reasons, but it's chock full of Bad Magic Words so I can't link to it here. It's also at least as true now as it was back then, so I would not be at all surprised if Trump wins the next USA presidential election too.
Just make sure it isn't an Epstein party@NVP No re-occurance yet but I haven't been to any dream-parties since. I'm bound to bump into him again one of these nights.
Not that he said that, nice spin. Is that what your Russian controller instructed you to post?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,730
- Location
- Auckland
Nationalfile.com
Just LOL, my dude.
Just LOL, my dude.
The Cold war says hello
schiff is an idiot.I see the Dems in virginia are bringing in a new law that says you can't say a bad thing about the democrats
it will be a Class 1 Misdemeanor to criticize the government with the ability for Richmond authorities to charge any citizen of the state with the crime.
Did anyone else see dem Chuck Schumer talking to invisible people?
https://twitter.com/Graenni/status/...er-appears-to-interact-with-invisible-person/
- Status