Speculation and conspiracy theorizing. — NOS4A2

Rather, psychology 101.

Except in the context of the House’s claims to the opposite, it is completely relevant. — NOS4A2

The positive claims and the House's claims to the contrary are both irrelevant.

Reference please.

Purpura‘s arguments lay it all out, and includes videos of each of those men saying so. But you would have known that had you watched it.

Rather, psychology 101.

Spin and nonsense 101.

Because your claims are unconvincing. — NOS4A2

I can see I've brought a fact to a feeling fight.

Enjoy your feelings about Trump. But maybe do some research into Trump's personality and history.

Spin and nonsense 101. — NOS4A2

Getting caught has the power to change behavior. Basic psychology. Obvious to anyone who isn't blindy in support of Trump. Especially considering his well-documented history of false and misleading statements.

You’re being misled to believe piffle, friend. Go watch the arguments and try coming to your own conclusions.

Purpura‘s arguments lay it all out, and includes videos of each of those men saying so. But you would have known that had you watched it. — NOS4A2

So-and-so say it's so. So-and-so say it's not. So it's arguable. But you've made up your mind. Because you're a fanatic and have an emotional weakness for Trump. You're infatuated, in a word.

You’re being misled to believe piffle, friend. — NOS4A2

Unsupported and vague opining. Emotional content without a factual support.

So-and-so say it's so. So-and-so say it's not. So it's arguable. But you've made up your mind. Because you're a fanatic and have an emotional weakness for Trump. You're infatuated, in a word.

Who says it’s not? Because they address that as well. Of course you’d have known this had you watched the arguments.

You’re being misled to believe piffle, friend. — NOS4A2

What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements? Do you trust Trump?

Who says it’s not? — NOS4A2

It's above, in my fact check.

It's above, in my fact check.

Your fact check is wrong.

Your fact check is wrong. — NOS4A2

Vague, unsupported opining.

Vague, unsupported opining.

You are unable to even name the persons who said otherwise. Give it a shot.

You are unable to even name the persons who said otherwise. Give it a shot. — NOS4A2

If you had read my fact check, above, you would know. Go ahead and give it a read.

If you had read my fact check, above, you would know. Go ahead and give it a read.

I already did, hence my rebuttal. I just want to see if you know your own “fact checks”.

I already did, hence my rebuttal. — NOS4A2

Too vague to be considered a rebuttal. Your rebuttal doesn't address the specific facts in my fact check. To continue the discussion, please address the specific facts in my fact check.

Also: Again: What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements? Do you trust Trump?

Too vague to be considered a rebuttal. Your rebuttal doesn't address the specific facts in my fact check. To continue the discussion, please address the specific facts in my fact check.

Also: Again: What do you have to say about Trump's well-documented history of false and misleading statements? Do you trust Trump?

You don’t even know your own “fact checks”. Sorry, pal, but this isn’t going to work.

Hurry, hurry, change the focus...

This isn't about us. Talk about panty waists...

So...

We have concerted efforts and attempts to fulfill Constitutional obligations by members of the House Intelligence Committee and the House Judiciary Committee. The House found that the defense aimed to thwart ongoing investigations into presidential behaviours that piqued attentive concern.

This is a behavioural pattern. Why on earth is the president so adamant about _________?

The Russian invetsigation(in Comeys mind). The Ukrainian investigation into the Bidens being directly linked by virtue of simultaneuosly discussing the two in terms of "doing what's best", or "doing what's right", when both amount to doing what the president wants(in Bolton's mind) in return for releasing the previously appropriated but subsequently withheld funds? Why else are those two disparate subject matters entwined?

Bolton could not make sense of it. Trump hired outside council regarding it.

Questionable behaviours. More than one white house staff and/or former appointee will readily verify this. Comey was the first to be flabbergasted. He's not alone.

This serves as more than adequate warrant for further pursuing the investigation There were people ordered to not testify. The refusal to testify was part of the white house narrative. It was a broad-based discussion.

Bolton was one.

This witness has already publicly expressed his willingness to publicly testify regarding the Ukrainian matters. Much is already public.

The first article is a shiny object.

One can be completely innocent of misappropriation of funds and guilty of obstructing the investigation.

The sheer amount of available evidence to prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction includes a well documented pattern of his behaviour. That is a lifelong pattern to put an end to anything he does not like... especially if it is about him... or effects/affects him... or he perceives the situation as such...

Sorry, pal, but this isn’t going to work. — NOS4A2

K. Have a good one.

The sheer amount of available evidence to prove that Trump is guilty of obstruction includes a well documented pattern of his behaviour. That is a lifelong pattern to put an end to anything he does not like... especially if it is about him... or effects/affects him... or he perceives the situation as such... — creativesoul

Right. He's been liar and a bully for a long, long time.

He's proven that he is the kind of person who resorts to any means possible to get what he wants.

Yep.

Trump's defense has included the claim that Trump was performing his obligation/duty to investigate and eliminate governmental corruption...

Never knew Biden was still in government. The investigation into the Bidens is already complete.

It's a distraction. A shiny object.

Obstruction.

Trump's defense has included the claim that Trump was performing his obligation/duty to investigate and eliminate governmental corruption... — creativesoul

They're asking us to accept that Donald J. Trump is some kind of anti-corruption crusader. Laughable.

Unless the corruption involves an investigation he does not agree with. Then... he does everything in his power to thwart, corrupt, belittle, devalue, dismiss, and/or otherwise negatively influence those particular investigations. He has even asked those in charge to make them go away.

Funny that... coming from a president who wants anyone to believe he is some hero of anti-corruption...

The slogan "drain the swamp" convinces only those who do not consider all the relevant facts brought into evidence.