Comments by "Triple 9" (@Betta66) on "House Formalizes Impeachment Proceedings Along Entirely Partisan Lines" video.

On what grounds? Every piece of evidence I've seen for this Constitutionally established process being illegitimate has been weak or wrong.
3
@CountSpartula I didn't say you said the process itself was illegitimate. I said what the House is doing is a Constitutional process, and every argument I've seen explaining how the House's attempt is illegitimate is weak or wrong. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal one, so the requirements for evidence are not the same. The Constitution does not explain what "high crimes and misdemeanors" are. But I'm going to go out on a limb and say abuse of office (which is what the House is alleging based on the corroborated whistleblower complaints) counts. So I'm still right - all the evidence I've seen for this attempt being illegitimate are weak or wrong.
2
@sik3xploit This is not a criminal proceeding. It's a impeachment proceeding, and the rules of evidence don't apply. So the right to face accusers doesn't apply.
2
@Elron 1. "A Democrat anti-Trump 'whistleblower' with ties to Adam Shiff?" First of all, it's "Schiff." Secondly, if you don't know the exact identity of the whistleblower, how can you be so sure anything you claimed about this person is correct? From what I understand, the person is a White House employee who worked in the previous three administrations. How does that prove he's either a Democrat or anti-Trump? Oh, and regarding Adam Schiff, the whistleblower contacted a staffer, not Schiff himself. As I understand it, the whistleblower felt the White House would bury the complaint, so they gave it to Congress and were told to send the complaint through the proper process, which they did. 2. We did not read the transcript. It was a summary. The first page of it contains the words "not a verbatim transcript," which makes sense because it says on the document that the conversation took thirty minutes. How could a thirty minute conversation fit on 4.5 pages? But even in the SUMMARY, Trump still asked a foreign government to investigate a political rival, even though Ukrainian prosecutors found no evidence that Joe or Hunter Biden committed any wrongdoing. 3. Try again.
1
@chuckcribbs3398 "Are we forced to give Ukraine money...for nothing?" What is it with Trump supporters and getting things in return? Trump suggested pulling troops out of South Korea because he claimed they're not paying us enough. To be clear, paying foreign governments for dirt on political rivals is literally the exact same charge Styx leveled against the Steele dossier, but the Trump-Ukraine phone call doesn't count? "Four stenographers all came to the same conclusion" Even if that was in any way relevant, who are these stenographers and where did they say this? "But if we have politicians taking bribes in Ukraine you’re okay with that?" No, but that isn't what happened with the Bidens. Ukrainian prosecutors found neither Joe nor Hunter Biden committed any wrongdoing, which would make sense if you looked at the timeline. Hunter started working for Burisma AFTER the money-laundering took place and the efforts to remove the prosecutor (an effort the U.S. and multiple allies undertook because the prosecutor was corrupt) took place two years after the Burisma investigation was dropped. Where exactly in that video of Joe Biden talking about it does he say he did it because of Hunter? I once had a discussion with another Styx subscriber who challenged me to show when on the campaign trail Trump promised to put Hillary in jail and not simply when he promised to get a prosecutor to investigate her (even though no one threatens prosecution on someone they don't want put in jail). So if Styx and his followers need the exact words to prove something in one case but not another, what does that make you?
1
@sik3xploit Except we do know what the allegations are. They were in the whistleblower complaints, which were corroborated multiple times.
1
@sik3xploit You mean the one Trump keeps pretending he released the transcript for, despite the words "not a verbatim transcript" being on the first page? Again, weak or wrong.
1
@sik3xploit So you're going to willingly miss the point then, I take it?
1
@sik3xploit Again, the Constitution does not explicitly define "high crimes and misdemeanors," but using the office of the Presidency to withhold foreign aid unless a political rival is investigated for wrongdoing they were not found to have committed should count if it doesn't already.
1
@sik3xploit So you're going to keep missing the point, huh? What Trump did was withhold foreign aid unless Ukraine investigated a political rival, despite that rival having been found not to have done anything wrong. Hunter Biden wasn't even involved in the Burisma investigation because, again, he did nothing wrong.
1
@sik3xploit 1. Trump's daughter and son-in-law have a senior White House positions and NOW you're worried about nepotism? 2. You make it sound like Biden personally pressured the Ukrainian government into firing the prosecutor all by himself. In reality, the U.S. and multiple allies pressured the Ukrainian government to fire the prosecutor because the prosecutor was corrupt. If it had anything to do with Hunter's employment at Burisma, why did Biden wait two years? 3. It's not Trump's civic duty to withhold financial aid unless Ukraine investigates a political rival when Hunter had no involvement in the focus on the investigation and, again, UKRAINIAN PROSECUTORS FOUND JOE AND HUNTER BIDEN COMMITTED NO WRONGDOING!
1
@Trumpis God Says the guy who doesn't know the difference between a leftist and a liberal. Rage Against the Machine is leftist. I'm not.
1
@nkm901 Read page 11. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vUI__sxL_fgzy5JYqaxB9cysOHwwQSE4/view
1
@Trumpis God You keep failing to explain how anything I said was wrong because you have no evidence to disprove anything I said. You have nothing.
1
Greg Delotelle 1. Did I say Biden never did anything wrong in his life? No. What I'm saying is that both Joe and Hunter Biden were found to have committed no wrongdoing with regards to Burisma. 2. "He's on tape bragging about it." Trump was on camera asking not one but two foreign governments to investigate Joe Biden of a crime he was - again - found to have never committed. I once had a discussion with another Styx subscriber who challenged me to show when on the campaign trail Trump promised to put Hillary in jail and not simply when he promised to get a prosecutor to investigate her (even though no one threatens prosecution on someone they don't want put in jail). So if Styx and his followers do need the exact words to prove something in Biden's case but not Hillary's, what does that make you? A hypocrite. Try again.
1
@Trumpis God You're a lying, cancerous hemorrhoid and you will never be anything more than that.
1
@Trumpis God 1. "You also failed to mention Biden getting rid of a prosecutor with billions of dollars" No evidence. 2. "We know the call was fine and legal." No, we don't. We didn't get the transcript. We got a summary. I know this because it says "not a verbatim transcript" on the first page. So you're not only a liar, but you're also an idiot. Try again, prick.
1
@Trumpis God You're still failing to explain how anything I said was wrong, idiot.
1
Evocati 1. The House is not required to vote on an impeachment inquiry. The only required vote is for articles of impeachment. Strike one. 2. Impeachment is a political process, not a legal process. The rules of evidence are therefore different. Strike two. 3. You're a liar who will fail to prove me wrong. Strike three.
1
@Trumpis God I know what Zelensky said. If what he said is true, then Trump should have no trouble releasing the full transcript and not a summary, which you would know was the point I was arguing if you weren't a failure. Try again, idiot.
1
@Trumpis God Except they were strikes. I explained very clearly how you were wrong. You're still a liar, you're still an idiot, and you're still wrong. Try again, failure.
1
@Trumpis God "We know you're full of shit. " Projecting again, are you?
1
@UCLE0juQvRD7ZPU_imZvQk8g "Keep it coming snowflake" You're still failing to prove me wrong, idiot.
1
@Trumpis God No, "Dunning-Kruger" is for idiots who thinks they're smarter than they are despite the fact that they fail to prove how anything I said was wrong. Also, your medical degree from Trump University was a scam. Get a real one and shut up about TDS, fraud.
1
@Trumpis God I'm still waiting for you to stop being a piece of shit and actually prove how anything I said was wrong. I know you won't. You have nothing. You are nothing. You're a failure.
1
@Trumpis God I'm flattered you think you're more important than you really are. But you still haven't proved anything I said was wrong. You're a failure.
1
@Trumpis God "Kind of impossible to convince a low IQ leftist like you that they're wrong" Said Trumpis God, projecting again. You're a liar, an idiot, and a failure. You have nothing. You are nothing.
1
@Trumpis God "Names got ya triggered" Said the idiot who's so triggered by facts that he doesn't have any. You have failed to prove anything I said wrong. Not because I'm "low IQ," but because you literally have no facts to support anything you have to say. You have nothing. You are nothing.
1
@Trumpis God "You think youre the keeper of facts. Symptom resembles narcissism. " You're projecting again. And you're still failing to prove me wrong, idiot. You can't even use apostrophes correctly. How much of a failure are you?
1
@Trumpis God I explained myself earlier. I'm not triggered by "mid spellings," you fucking idiot. People who don't take their spelling seriously shouldn't be taken seriously. You have done nothing to prove how you should be taken seriously and you still haven't fixed your mistake. You're a worthless failure. Fuck you.
1
@Trumpis God That should be the other way around. If you're such an asshole that you misspell "you're dumb" and I can't tell whether you're that stupid or doing it on purpose, you should not even qualify for whatever bullshit game you think we're having. Try again, failure.
1
@Trumpis God No, I won't block you, because unlike Trump, I'm not a thin skinned brat who blocks people willy nilly.
1
Trump supporters: Why are the impeachment hearings being held in secret?! This is a coup! HoR: You want transparency? Fine, we held a vote and now we're going to hold public hearings. Trump supporters: Partisan posturing!
1