Sunday, January 26, 2020

Impeachment logic is actually two polar opposite arguments at the same time!

So to listen to the Democrats explain their impeachment justification, they will provide for you two key points. Both of which would have to be true, but only one of which "could" logically be true.


  • Key point one: That asking to reopen the investigations into the company Burisma is akin to election interference because the investigation would focus on the role that Hunter Biden had in the company, and the role that Joe Biden played in getting the prosecutor fired. So in essence, asking for an investigation into Burisma, is asking for an investigation into Joe Biden (Trump's potential political opponent in the 2020 election).
  • Key point two: That the suspended investigations of Burisma were focused on things that happened prior to Hunter Biden ever joining the company, there was never any evidence of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, and that Joe Biden asked for the prosecutor to be fired for reasons that had absolutely nothing to do with the investigation into Burisma.

So which is true? If point one is true and asking for an investigation into Burisma is akin to asking for an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden, then point two cannot possibly be true.  But if point two is true, and Hunter Biden had nothing to do with the Burisma investigations, and the Prosecutor was not fired in order to end the Burisma investigation, then point one cannot possibly be true. 

Such a logic quagmire. 

The truth, of course, is that key point one is likely true, and that key point two is total fiction. Democrats are afraid of what the Burisma investigations would uncover, but are forced to make the nonsensical argument that such an investigation also unwarranted. They cannot just argue that the investigation might uncover negative things about their potential 2020 Presidential candidate, so it cannot happen. That would be an admission that they believe that there probably is corruption that involves Hunter and Joe Biden. It could also arguably be called obstruction of Justice.

So they have to add the second portion (that the investigation is unwarranted) to cover up their real fears. It actually undercuts their first argument, but their hope is that the logical quandary would to unnoticed. So far it has.

The fact that this twisted argument has even made it this far is just a testimonial in regards to how much hatred and how much Trump derangement syndrome actually exists. Their rabid fans and swooning media do not want to think that hard. They prefer to be happily fooled by a dumb argument, than to actually admit that this whole thing is bullshit!

The bottom line is that if the Democrats are really confident that there is no Burisma corruption that will touch Hunter or Joe Biden, then they should welcome such an opportunity to clear the reputation of their potential 2020 candidate. The fact that they don't welcome this opportunity can only be explained by the reality that they do believe that the Bidens acted corruptly, and that they desperately want to sweep it under the rug.

210 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210
anonymous said...


There is a firsthand witness!


EXACTLY!!!!! The whole R defense is based on no direct evidence....now all the talking heads and idiots like cramps are tossing bolton under the bus just like trump!!!!! Another example why no one should work for the asshole in chief unless you leave your morality at the door....which cramps, the goat fucker and Lil Scotty do daily!@!!!!!!

Myballs said...

Oh please. You've been plastering these boards with your articles. Clearly You're trying very hard to put forth a narrative. The problem for you here is, you do it so much thst most of us skip right over all your copy pastes.

Myballs said...

And if it's in a book it must be true. Just like comey. You're flailing.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

I've got a feeling the people mounting the President's defense today will be the ones who will be flailing.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

This is important enough for a separate thread.

Why is Ch laying low?

Anonymous said...

probably rope-a-dope

and you are the dope

anonymous said...

Anonymous Myballs said...
And if it's in a book it must be true

BWAAAAAAPAAAAAA!!!!!! Good chance this could be a lot of fun to watch!!!!

The ball less wonder a bolton sycophant now discredits one of his favorite R's.....I remember that the NY loser was completely agog when bolton was put in the UN slot....hoping to blow the place up!!!!! Now he is blowing up trump with first hand account and the loser calls him a liar!!!!!! WOW!!!! how the world changes with every revelation of trumps fingerprints on the Ukraine....something I have predicted from the start!!!! Funny your whole narrative ballz is based on trump's lies!!!!!!

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump has “no intention whatsoever” of having John Bolton’s book read aloud to him, Trump confirmed on Monday.

Speaking to reporters at the White House, Trump said that his daughter, Ivanka Trump, had obtained a draft manuscript of the Bolton book and had offered to read it aloud to him “like she does with all of the other books,” Trump said.

“She reads the books to me slowly and stops when there’s a long word to tell me what it means,” Trump said. “But I told her that the Bolton book was the last book in the world that I wanted to hear.”



Trump acknowledged that Ivanka had previously read aloud to him other books that he had not enjoyed, such as “A Warning,” by Anonymous.

“That Anonymous guy has to be the worst writer,” he said. “After Ivanka read ten pages of that crap to me, I told her to throw the book across the room, and she did.”

Trump said that he hears “many books” a week, and that sometimes his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, takes turns with Ivanka reading them aloud to him.

“I’ve enjoyed hearing Sean Hannity’s books and Laura Ingraham’s books,” Trump said. “But John Bolton’s? Please. That’s the last book I want to hear when Ivanka and Jared tuck me in at night.”

Coldheartedtruth Teller said...

There is a firsthan. The whole R defense is based on no direct evidence.


Unless you believe he is a liar.

Honest, decent, truthful Rev. said...

LOL

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 210 of 210   Newer› Newest»