President Joe Biden

You appear to go the usual lazy route of trying to force me to paraphrase someone else’s work instead of asking an intelligent question about the argument.

You sem to be saying that you believe the accusation was "debunked" because the authors of that article told you it was.
 
No I’m saying it was debunked because of what the authors of the article outline

"I thought his pressuring of the Georgia Secretary of State was also impeachable but that’s been debunked."

No rational person would find that the contents of the article support that statement. A confused person might, however.
 
"I thought his pressuring of the Georgia Secretary of State was also impeachable but that’s been debunked."

No rational person would find that the contents of the article support that statement. A confused person might, however.
There’s nothing to respond to here because you haven’t made an argument as to why only claiming that it’s not rational.
 
There’s nothing to respond to here because you haven’t made an argument as to why only claiming that it’s not rational.

From the photo caption -- "In a one-hour phone call Saturday with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Secretary of State, President Trump urged him to overturn his defeat in the November election against President-elect Joe Biden. "

You may have heard the recording of that call. It's over an hour long, but here is the best part --


"I just want to find 11,780 votes" -- Remember that?
 
From the photo caption -- "In a one-hour phone call Saturday with Brad Raffensperger, Georgia's Secretary of State, President Trump urged him to overturn his defeat in the November election against President-elect Joe Biden. "

You may have heard the recording of that call. It's over an hour long, but here is the best part --


"I just want to find 11,780 votes" -- Remember that?
Ok now an actual question. I think the 11780 comes close to the line but it’s not a statement that crosses the line into legal tampering. The much more troubling comments that made clear the intent were the call to the investigator and the quotations which were made up. Was it wrong and norm breaking? Yes absolutely. Did it rise to the legal standard for tampering? No. And why then if what he did was clear and convincingly wrong the need to lie about it? Why was the Washington post put in a position of having to retract?
 
Ok now an actual question. I think the 11780 comes close to the line but it’s not a statement that crosses the line into legal tampering. The much more troubling comments that made clear the intent were the call to the investigator and the quotations which were made up. Was it wrong and norm breaking? Yes absolutely. Did it rise to the legal standard for tampering? No. And why then if what he did was clear and convincingly wrong the need to lie about it? Why was the Washington post put in a position of having to retract?

They didn't retract. They realized that had made a mistake and issued a correction. That is what adults do quite often.

Now how did that gett you to "debunked"?
 
They didn't retract. They realized that had made a mistake and issued a correction. That is what adults do quite often.

Now how did that gett you to "debunked"?
Hey Espola and all the other avatars you have . The biggest problem we have in this country and around the world is how men have been behaving and treating ladies and girls like shit. Game, set and match bro. Wake up and change or get lost loser!!!

Cuomo accuser Lindsey Boylan claims governor once joked he would try to 'mount' her if he were a dog

1616161336593.png
 
Exactly as I said. Without those quotes there isn’t a legal basis for tampering.

The correction was not in regard to the infamous recorded telephone call with the Georgia Secretary of State. It was a correction to a report on a different telephone conversation with a different person, the Deputy Secretary of State.

Have you figured out why I said "confused" yet?
 
The correction was not in regard to the infamous recorded telephone call with the Georgia Secretary of State. It was a correction to a report on a different telephone conversation with a different person, the Deputy Secretary of State.

Have you figured out why I said "confused" yet?
Fair clarification. I’m using shorthand for the sec states office as did the article. Seriously dude only you expect everything on the net to be a cited dissertation. Weird.
 
Fair clarification. I’m using shorthand for the sec states office as did the article. Seriously dude only you expect everything on the net to be a cited dissertation. Weird.

It was in plain English, and the article made clear that it was reporting on a different telephone conversation.
 
Sounds like characteristics of both parties. Isn't it interesting how easily people are convinced their party is the party of good.

To be clear, let me repeat my statement that I'm not a member of nor advocate for any political party. Issues like those I stated are the main reason why I no longer consider myself a Republican.
 
again not sufficient to meet the legal threshold. The corrected conversation would have gotten there but didn’t. The other option is pence but he’s not talking

I admit that I was wrong. I thought that you were confused, but instead, it seems that you are just practicing partisan advocacy.
 
Back
Top