Hypothetically speaking, Trump supporters, what would need to happen for you to believe the...

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Simple. Real evidence of a real crime. No hearsay, no bullshit. No unfair crap run by Adam Shithead, etc.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

 

[airplanemechanic]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

Facts in favor of the impeachment.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

Proof that he withheld aid for any reason other than past presidents who did the same thing.

Proof that he had personal gain.

Proof that he abused his power.

Ya know......actual PROOF.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Evidence.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

you might have a point if this impeachment thing didnt start on day one....

Nonsensical answer. The impeachment started about 10 weeks ago.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Proof that he withheld aid for any reason other than past presidents who did the same thing.

Proof that he had personal gain.

Proof that he abused his power.

Ya know......actual PROOF.

Yes, you said that already.

So, name some examples of this "proof". Be specific.

 

[Votto]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

Trump was already investigated bright boy, to the tune of $30 million in tax payer dollars and 3 years time.

And the whole time Dims were yelling they did not need to wait for the report to impeach him. Then when the investigation was officially done and known to all it came out Pelosi said he was not worth it to impeach him. What the............

Then all of a sudden that changed when Trump stumbled on to the corruption of Quid Pro Joe and his son. Then all of a sudden they Dims were exposed but instead of going on defense, which they NEVER do, they went on offense by trying to convince us all that he was violating laws to investigate the corruption. Then all of a sudden it becomes worth it to Pelosi to impeach him?

LOL.

 

[airplanemechanic]

you might have a point if this impeachment thing didnt start on day one....

Nonsensical answer. The impeachment started about 10 weeks ago.

I get it guys. This is a troll thread. No matter what answer you give these fucking idiots they'll say it's "nonsensical".

Well the whole fucking impeachment fuckup is "nonsensical".

Guys don't feed the trolls.

What proof? Proof of a crime dumbass. What proof would you need to believe Joe Biden did quid pro quo with old Hunter? A video? Not good enough? Where is the video of Trump doing quid pro quo?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

A conviction. That’s it.

Nonsensical answer. You are being asked about the evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No matter what answer you give these fucking idiots they'll say it's "nonsensical".

Try to focus. When you are asked what kind of evidence would convince you, "proof!" and "evidence!" are, indeed, nonsensical answers.

But I am sure your answer is forthcoming.

 

[airplanemechanic]

No matter what answer you give these fucking idiots they'll say it's "nonsensical".

Try to focus. When you are asked what kind of evidence would convince you, "proof!" and "evidence!" are, indeed, nonsensical answers.

But I am sure your answer is forthcoming.

When I'm asked "what kind of evidence" it's already been answered.

What kind of bullshit thread is this? What would a jury member answer if they were asked "what kind of proof would you need to believe the defendant was guilty of the alleged crime?" How the fuck do they answer that?

 

[Pilate]

A conviction. That’s it.

Nonsensical answer. You are being asked about the evidence.

It’s a moot question because neither you nor I have access to it in an unfiltered capacity. Reports and memos and interviews and testimonies are just passed onto us second hand. Furthermore, all the evidence presented seems to contradict itself. We have two groups of people reading the same documents saying that the documents support entirely different conclusions.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

When I'm asked "what kind of evidence" it's already been answered.

False. "Proof!" is not an answer. You are being asked to name specific examples of evidence that would constitute proof, in your eyes.

Now why is it that not ONE single trump cultist can grow the stones to answer this?

 

[Auld Phart]

The Whistleblower, and Adam Schiff, under oath connected to a lie detector.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

The TRUTH.

AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT WITHOUT A LIE DETECTOR

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It’s a moot question because neither you nor I have access to it in an unfiltered capacity.

Nonsensical answer. Nobody needs to have access to any evidence -- in fact, the examplea of evidence you provide in your answer do not even need to exist -- for you to answer the following question:

What type/examples of evidence would convince you that trump withheld foreign security aid for personal gain?

Come on, you can do it.

 

[Pilate]

When I'm asked "what kind of evidence" it's already been answered.

False. "Proof!" is not an answer. You are being asked to name specific examples of evidence that would constitute proof, in your eyes.

Now why is it that not ONE single trump cultist can grow the stones to answer this?

Cause it’s an ambiguous question. Types of evidence include forensic, circumstantial, etc. Your question can be answered with an adjective. You need to narrow it down.

 

[MarathonMike]

I would need to see evidence of real wrong doing like shipping $1.5 billion dollars in cash to a Terrorist State

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

'Personal gain' is pure speculation and is the basis for the entire Impeachment FARCE. President Trump wanted to get to the bottom of Obama/Biden Ukrainian corruption. What would he fear from bumbling Biden as a political opponent? ROFL.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The TRUTH.

AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET IT WITHOUT A LIE DETECTOR

Another cowardly, nonsensical answer.

Examples of evidence. Be specific.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

One single, solitary shred of proof would be a good starter and I'm not even a Trump supporter. I voted for Gary Johnson.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

In other words, the truth?

 

[Pilate]

It’s a moot question because neither you nor I have access to it in an unfiltered capacity.

Nonsensical answer. Nobody needs to have access to any evidence -- in fact, the examplea of evidence you provide in your answer do not even need to exist -- for you to answer the following question:

What type/examples of evidence would convince you that trump withheld foreign security aid for personal gain?

Come on, you can do it.

Evidence I can validate myself, in person, not mediated to me by a third party, and without any sort of paraphrasing.

 

[Votto]

...investigation and impeachment proceedings are valid?

What evidence would need to exist short of Trump magically admitting wrong doing in full detail?

It seems as though you dismiss the investigation into Trump for two reasons and two reasons only and nothing will change your mind about it. Those reasons are:

1) Trump is a republican and you voted for him.

2) The democrats are behind the impeachment.

Is that it? What I find incredibly lame is that you don’t even think the investigation itself is necessary. You think the democrats or any investigative body should drop the whole thing. Based on all of the facts presented, you can’t even say “well, okay. Let’s look at a few things. There are a few red flags about this whole thing if I’m trying to be objective about it. Just let an independent body investigate it instead of those demo-rats!”

Trump was already investigated bright boy, to the tune of $30 million in tax payer dollars and 3 years time.

And the whole time Dims were yelling they did not need to wait for the report to impeach him. Then when the investigation was officially done and known to all it came out Pelosi said he was not worth it to impeach him. What the............

Then all of a sudden that changed when Trump stumbled on to the corruption of Quid Pro Joe and his son. Then all of a sudden they Dims were exposed but instead of going on defense, which they NEVER do, they went on offense by trying to convince us all that he was violating laws to investigate the corruption. Then all of a sudden it becomes worth it to Pelosi to impeach him?

LOL.

Your answer is cowardly and nonsensical.

Answer the real question:

What evidence, Specifically, would convince you that trump abused his power by withholding foreign security aid for personal gain?

That is a good question because there never seems to be a lack of witnesses to hurl accusations at Trump or those around him. But it seems OK that Quid Pro Joe tells the Ukrainian President to fire the man investigating corruption in the corporation his son works for, or else, and brags about it on tape and that's OK?

You people are insane.