Do those Liberals, know what they're doing, in regards to "Impeachment?" - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Do those Liberals, know what they're doing, in regards to "Impeachment?"
in Politics

By TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
As of today, only 40% of the Public, agrees with the idea of the "Impeachment," rhetoric, in regards to President Trump.

If the overall Public, isn't a 100% behind, some of those Liberal lawmakers, who are seeking to Impeach the POTUS, then, who would the Impeachment of the POTUS benefit?

The overall Public, as a whole?

Or those individual, Liberal lawmakers, who are seeking to Impeach the POTUS, and that 40% of the Public, who are, a part of, those individual liberal lawmakers constituent bases, or fanbase follower bases? 

Your Publicity game is going to be a tricky one, to maintain, for the upcoming, days, weeks, and months, leading up to the upcoming 2020 Election cycle, to maintain, isn't it?


Nancy Pelosi?

Chuck Schumer?

Adam Schiff?

AOC?

Jerry Nadler?


The lot of you, are trying to play a time game, with a type of (Liberal Time Clock,) that doesn't exist, to self benefit,  your Liberal lawmaker, opinions, views, or wants?

A guess, in regards to your actions, the lot of you, are going to Publicly sell, yourselves short.

And the 40% of the Public, that supports your rhetoric?

You are going to be selling them, short as well.





ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
«13



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted To Win
Tie

Details +



Arguments

  • @TKDB

    OMG - the commas!!!
    TKDBPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
  • VaulkVaulk 656 Pts
    edited September 25
    @SkepticalOne

    Holy $hit I just noticed that.  That is an ungodly collection of commas.  Who wrote that for you @TKDB?
    SkepticalOneTKDBPlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 25
    @Vaulk

    The NRA helped me.

    Do you have anything to add, to this specific forum?

    Do those Liberals, know what they're doing, in regards to "Impeachment?"


    Nancy Pelosi, loves using the news media outlets to promote the Impeachment messaging to the overall Public.

    Just like the NRA, loves using Twitter, to promote their pro gun messaging, with the Second Amendment as their background banner, to the overall Public as well.


    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 25
    Another one, of the Impeachment Liberals:

    This morning during the 9 AM CST/10 AM ET hour, I will speak on the Floor of the House of Representatives to acknowledge the vindicated. Please watch on @cspan
    . #Impeachment "



    And a response to his statement:

    Replying to and
    Why are folks taking a victory lap? I really hope between the transcript, the whistleblower complaint, and the testimony of the whistleblower there is some “there” there."

    So, some of the Public, aren't politically, buying into the Impeachment rhetoric.

    Just as I'm not buying into it either.


    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 25
    From Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter:

    "Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
    ·
    29m
    "I would like you to do us a favor...” Folks, I am surprised the White House even released this transcript. It’s worse than we thought. The President sought to use the powers of the United States government to investigate a political opponent. We have no choice but to impeach. "
    Quote Tweet


    Also - what they are calling a “transcript” isn’t even a transcript. It’s a collection of notes. This is what they are *admitting* to and it’s way above and beyond what is necessary for impeachment. The President engaged in an outright betrayal of our country."


    From the NPR on Twitter:


    "NPR
    · 1h
    BREAKING: President Trump asked Ukraine's president to see what he could find out about Joe Biden's family activities in Ukraine, and be in touch with his lawyer and Attorney General Bill Barr, a transcript shows. https://n.pr/2l3Eu1R "
    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    From CNN:


    https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-09-25-2019/index.html?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15694288893357&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-impeachment-inquiry-09-25-2019/index.html

    "House launches Trump impeachment inquiry

    By Meg Wagner, Mike Hayes and Amanda Wills, CNN
    Updated 10:18 AM ET, Wed September 25, 2019
     
    House launches Trump impeachment inquiry
     

    What we know so far

    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    Representative John Lewis, is another Politician pushing for Impeachment:



    The future of our democracy is at stake. I truly believe the time to begin impeachment proceedings against this president has come. To do otherwise would betray the foundations of our democracy."




    More from CNN:

    "Pelosi calls out 'President's betrayal of his oath of office' in announcing formal impeachment inquiry

    By Dana BashManu RajuSunlen Serfaty and Clare Foran, CNN

    Updated at 6:36 PM ET, Tue September 24, 2019

    Play Video
    01:04
    Rep. Lewis joins Dems calling for impeachment inquiry


    Washington (CNN) — House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday announced a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, a dramatic and historic move that comes as the President faces outrage over reports that he pressured a foreign leader in an effort to target a political rival.
    The announcement marks the most direct step taken by the House Democratic leader to embrace impeachment proceedings and is a significant escalation in the fight between House Democrats and the President.
    "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," Pelosi said in a brief speech in the Capitol, adding, "The President must be held accountable. No one is above the law."
    "Actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution," the House speaker said.
    The House speaker, who has long pushed to keep her caucus away from the politically divisive issue, is responding to the seismic shift among Democratic members, following Trump's admission of discussing Vice President Joe Biden and his son in his phone call with the Ukrainian President. Dozens of House Democrats -- many from moderate or Trump-won districts -- have announced their support for an impeachment inquiry over the past 48 hours.
    "This week, the President has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections," Pelosi said in her public remarks.
    In advance of that statement, Pelosi and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer also announced plans to vote on a resolution of disapproval on Wednesday for allegations "that the President of the United States sought to enlist a foreign government to interfere in our democratic process by investigating one of his political rivals -- and may have used the withholding of Congressionally-appropriated foreign assistance days earlier as intimidation." Their statement did not mention impeachment.

    'Full speed ahead'

    Pelosi consulted Tuesday afternoon with the six House Democratic leaders to discuss their presentation to the caucus later in the day, Democratic sources familiar with the issue said. In that closed-door meeting before her public announcement, Pelosi said the six chairmen will continue to investigate under a powerful new umbrella of an impeachment inquiry.
    A separate source in the room said the speaker added, "Here we are. A moment of truth. Truth is what this has been about all along."
    "He's taken it to another level of betrayal therefore we're moving forward with another level of inquiry," Pelosi said.
    Behind the scenes, Pelosi has encouraged members of her caucus to state their impeachment position now in order to show there is a groundswell in the caucus. She is also conveying that message to freshmen.
    On Tuesday, Pelosi also told the caucus that the impeachment inquiry will be done "expeditiously," but wasn't specific in her timeframe, according to a source in the room.
    Rep. Jackie Speier told CNN that the President's actions in regards to Ukraine were so egregious, that there has been a "dramatic" shift by Pelosi.
    "I think she's very laser-focused on this offense as being so egregious that it warrants a full blown impeachment inquiry," she said.
    Asked what the timeline is for this, she said, "swiftly."
    House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on Tuesday after Pelosi's remarks, "I only have one thing to say, full speed ahead."

    Tide changing for Pelosi allies and vulnerable House freshmen

    Civil rights icon Rep. John Lewis on Tuesday announced his support for impeachment proceedings, arguing that "now is the time to act" and any delay "would betray the foundation of our democracy."
    "We will never find the truth unless we use the power given to the House of Representatives and the House alone to begin an official investigation as dictated by the Constitution," the Georgia Democrat said in a speech on the House floor. "The future of our democracy is at stake."
    Play Video
    Rep. Lewis joins Dems calling for impeachment inquiry 01:04
    Some of Pelosi's closest allies, including House Reps. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Debbie Dingell of Michigan, have signaled their support for impeachment proceedings — a significant indicator that the speaker could be moving closer to backing the divisive political procedure.
    Another crucial development has been multiple high profile freshmen Democrats in districts Trump won in 2016 either coming out publicly to fully endorse the House Judiciary Committee's impeachment inquiry or at least opening the door to proceedings, citing Trump's actions as forcing them to act.
    One of those freshman Democrats, Rep. Mikie Sherrill of New Jersey, stressed on CNN "New Day" Tuesday that "none of us ran on impeaching the President." But she argued that the allegation that Trump might have tried leveraging foreign military aid to advance his reelection efforts was "just a line that I think was too much for all of us."
    Pelosi has cited the House members in GOP-leaning districts as part of her hesitance to embrace impeachment, and the groundswell of statements over the past 48 hours could signal a tipping point in the political calculus.
    "If investigations confirm recent reports, these actions represent impeachable offences that threaten to undermine the integrity of our elections and jeopardize the balance of power within the federal government," Rep. Haley Stevens of Michigan said in a statement Tuesday. Stevens had told CNN last month that she had "mixed reviews from the people of my district" on the issue of whether to move forward with impeachment proceedings.
    So far, as many as 165 House Democrats have publicly stated their support for an impeachment inquiry into Trump, according to a CNN count, and that doesn't include the House Democrats who've said in recent days that the President's behavior is a turning point in Democrats' oversight into the administration.
    Pelosi has, for months, resisted pursuing impeachment because she has sought to protect vulnerable Democrats in GOP-leaning districts who could face voter backlash.
    Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, a member of House Judiciary, told CNN on Tuesday morning that he believes articles of impeachment are "inevitable" and said there's a "growing clamor throughout the Democratic caucus" to deal with Trump's "reckless and lawless" behavior.

    Some holdouts remain

    But some vulnerable Democrats in 2020 are still treading cautiously on the issue.
    Rep. Ben McAdams of Utah told CNN on Tuesday that he's "considering" impeachment, but didn't want to discuss the issue further.
    "Before making any judgments, I want to know the facts of what occurred between the President and Ukraine," McAdams said. "I share Sen. (Mitt) Romney's view that If the President used his position to pressure a foreign power to dig up dirt on a rival for his own personal gain, it would be deeply troubling. I believe it would be a betrayal of the loyalty owed to our country and the Constitution."
    Rep. Max Rose, another endangered House Democrat, told CNN that he has not moved off his opposition to impeachment, but argued that "we have to get to the facts" of the allegations.
    "It is impossible to not take these allegations seriously. It is a national security matter," the New York Democrat said Tuesday on Capitol Hill, adding, "It's incredibly serious ... what I'm not going to do is jump to make another declaration."
    Asked if that meant he is opposed to moving ahead on impeachment, Rose said, "My current position right now is clear, but that is not a justification to not take these points as seriously as possible."
    Rep. Susan Wild stood up during the Democratic caucus meeting on Tuesday and argued that Pelosi should cancel some of the upcoming two week recess to not lose momentum, according to a source in the room.
    The House, at the end of the week, will recess for two weeks for a district work period over the Yom Kippur and Columbus Day holidays.
    CNN previously reported that Trump pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in a July 25 call to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Hunter, according to a person familiar with the situation.
    There has been no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden.
    That call was also part of a whistleblower complaint submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General, which hasn't been shared with lawmakers despite calls from Democrats.
    Trump acknowledged on Sunday that he discussed the former Vice President Joe Biden in a phone call over the summer with Ukraine's president, but denied doing anything improper.
    CNN confirmed that Trump asked his acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney to put a hold on millions in military aid to Ukraine roughly one week before a call with Zelensky, two senior administration officials said on Monday. The Washington Post first reported this.
    In her public remarks on Tuesday, Pelosi said, "The law is unequivocal: it says the DNI, director of national intelligence, shall provide congress the full whistleblower complaint," Pelosi said.
    Earlier this month, the House Judiciary Committee approved a resolution defining the rules of the panel's impeachment investigation. That vote came, however, as Democrats struggled to publicly define the committee probe with Nadler saying the committee is conducting an impeachment inquiry, while Pelosi and other Democratic leaders had refrained from calling it that.
    In a nod to the ongoing investigations in the House, Pelosi said on Tuesday, "For the past several months we have been investigating in our committees and litigating in the courts so that the House can gather all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article I powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of articles of impeachment."
    The House Speaker also said in her speech, "I can say with authority the Trump administration's actions undermine both our national security and our intelligence and our protections of whistleblowers."

    This story is breaking and will be updated. 
    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    From Hillary Clinton on Twitter:


    The president of the United States has betrayed our country. That’s not a political statement—it’s a harsh reality, and we must act. He is a clear and present danger to the things that keep us strong and free. I support impeachment."
    10:15 AM · Sep 25, 2019 

    Hillary Clinton is another Liberal, who uses Twitter, to push her liberal messaging as well. 


    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 25
    @ZeusAres42

    Do you have anything to add constructively to this forum?

    Here's the theme of the forum:

    Do those Liberals, know what they're doing, in regards to "Impeachment?"



    As of today, only 40% of the Public, agrees with the idea of the "Impeachment," rhetoric, in regards to President Trump.

    If the overall Public, isn't a 100% behind, some of those Liberal lawmakers, who are seeking to Impeach the POTUS, then, who would the Impeachment of the POTUS benefit?

    The overall Public, as a whole?

    Or those individual, Liberal lawmakers, who are seeking to Impeach the POTUS, and that 40% of the Public, who are, a part of, those individual liberal lawmakers constituent bases, or fanbase follower bases? 

    Your Publicity game is going to be a tricky one, to maintain, for the upcoming, days, weeks, and months, leading up to the upcoming 2020 Election cycle, to maintain, isn't it?


    Nancy Pelosi?

    Chuck Schumer?

    Adam Schiff?

    AOC?

    Jerry Nadler?

    All Green?


    The lot of you, are trying to play a time game, with a type of (Liberal Time Clock,) that doesn't exist, to self benefit,  your Liberal lawmaker, opinions, views, or wants?

    A guess, in regards to your actions, the lot of you, are going to Publicly sell, yourselves short.

    And the 40% of the Public, that supports your rhetoric?

    You are going to be selling them, short as well.

    @ZeusAres42,

    They did sell the United States Public short, because the 5 Transcript, provided zero evidence against Trump, in the light of the Impeachment rhetoric.

    And the below Liberals failed:


    Nancy Pelosi

    Chuck Schumer

    Adam Schiff

    AOC

    Jerry Nadler

    All Green


    @ZeusAres42

    That's what's happened since yesterday.

    Please provide a counter argument? 



    What say you @Plaffelvohfen?

    What say you @SkepticalOne?

    What say you @Vaulk?








    ZeusAres42Zombieguy1987
  • Oooh so tempted to unmute him...sigh, but no, sorry bubba.
    ZeusAres42
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 26
    Liberal Adam Schiff, made his statements, through his Liberal, commentary choices, being that this Liberal individual, couldn't responsibly, handle the word (Transparency,) because it's apparently, outside of his Liberal oriented wheelhouse?

    Being that this Liberal is an apparent,  "Untransparent" individual.

    I watched this, Liberal talking head, pander, coddle, and cater, to his own Liberal constituent base, through the very lens of the Whistleblower Hearing today.

    And the other Conservatives who were a part of this hearing today, let Mr. Schiff, know, how they felt about his, apparent "bias commentary."


    https://deadline-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/deadline.com/2019/09/whistleblower-hearing-donald-trump-attacks-adam-schiff-live-tv-twitter-joseph-maguire-joe-biden-ukraine-1202745546/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15695241400872&csi=1&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://deadline.com/2019/09/whistleblower-hearing-donald-trump-attacks-adam-schiff-live-tv-twitter-joseph-maguire-joe-biden-ukraine-1202745546/

    "Donald Trump Blows A Gasket At Hollywood’s Congressman Online & On Live TV As Whistleblower Hearing Wraps Up"

      Dominic PattenSeptember 26, 2019 10:53AM PDT
    Shutterstock

    No one is ever going to accuse Donald Trump of being the kind of guy to benignly take a slap on the cheek. However, today the one-time Celebrity Apprentice host went truly ballistic on live television over the burgeoning Ukraine scandal and Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire’s just-wrapped testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

    “I just watched a little bit of this on television, it’s a disgrace to our country,” Trump said Thursday in front of cameras on the tarmac at Andrews Air Force Base, minutes after Air Force One had landed from days of awkward UN meetings in New York City.

    “It’s Adam Schiff and his crew making up stories and sitting there like pious, whatever you want to call them,” a clearly rattled Trump added in a near incoherent rant against the media-savvy California congressman, who chairs the Intelligence Committee and helmed Thursday’s hearing. Barely catching a breath and taking no questions from journalists, the besieged POTUS also spewed a bullet-point litany of accusations against Joe Biden, listing his own administration’s accomplishments and suggesting the courts should get involved in stopping the growing impeachment inquiry.

    Related Story

    Donald Trump Whistleblower Hearing Sends Cable and Broadcast Networks Into Watergate Mode

    House Speaker Nancy Pelosi launched the long awaited inquiry Tuesday as more information about Trump’s alleged effort to strong-arm a foreign government for political gain in the 2020 election came to light.

    With cable news and online publications split almost as harshly along partisan lines as Democrats and the GOP, the often apparently forgetful Maguire was in the hot seat this morning over a whistleblower complaint and the subsequent alleged cover-up over Trump’s conduct on a call with the newly elected president of the Ukraine earlier this year. Also, the New York Times wrote Thursday that Trump railed to a small group of aides and others this morning about the complaint and the person who made it.

    “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right?” Trump is claimed to have said at the U.S. Mission to the UN in New York before heading back to D.C. “We used to handle it a little differently than we do now.”

    “Adam Schiff doesn’t talk about Joe Biden and his son walking away with millions of dollars from Ukraine and then millions of dollars from China,” Trump said to the media before getting on Marine One at Andrews and resurrecting old and seemingly untrue slanders against the family of the man who may be the Democrats’ Presidential nominee in 2020 – accusations that CNN moved fast to fact-check as Trump was still speaking.

    Even before Trump’s TV barrage, POTUS took to social media from Air Force One to attack frequent cable news guest Schiff, whose district encompasses much of Hollywood:

    A whistleblower with second hand information? Another Fake News Story! See what was said on the very nice, no pressure, call. Another Witch Hunt!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) ;September 26, 2019

    Adam Schiff has zero credibility. Another fantasy to hurt the Republican Party!

    — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) ;September 26, 2019

    Informed of the tweet as he was speaking to reporters just after Intelligence Committee concluded, Schiff quipped: “I’m always flattered when I’m attacked by someone of the President’s character.”

    Both masters of the media, Schiff and Trump have clashed repeatedly since the latter was sworn into office in January 2017.

    The already high drama of this morning kicked off when the House Intelligence Committee released the actual complaint and unveiling that the whistleblower had “information from multiple U.S. government officials that the president of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president’s main domestic political rivals.”

    Maguire’s day on Capitol Hill isn’t over.

    The Acting DNI boss is currently meeting with senators behind closed doors about the Ukraine matter and Trump’s seemingly politically inspired actions. Keeping his own counsel so far, ex-Vice President Biden is in Hollywood today for another round of deep-pocketed fundraisers with some of the Democrats’ biggest donors, including former HBO Programming chief Michael Lombardo."





  • That's what's happened since yesterday.

    Please provide a counter argument? 



    What say you @Plaffelvohfen?

    What say you @SkepticalOne?

    What say you @Vaulk?
    Does Congress know what they're doing in regards to impeachment? Yes.  The president of the US has attempted to use his office to damage a political rival. Congress has oversight, so they're calling him to the carpet. The only if in this matter is the Republican controlled Senate. Can Republicans uphold their responsibility to the American people or does undeserved loyalty to Trump come first?
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • Does Congress know what they're doing in regards to impeachment? Yes. 

    Do they?  What are they doing?  Whatever it is, it's definitely NOT an impeachment.  Pelosi appears to be running a scam aimed at placating the noisiest and most extreme part of her party's base while protecting the reasonable Reps by saying there's an impeachment, but not actually doing it.

    The president of the US has attempted to use his office to damage a political rival.

    How did he do that?  He merely suggested that a foreign leader investigate corruption in his country.  It's not like Trump had the DOJ open a phony investigation based on oppo research and Russian disinformation and leaked dug-up/made-up allegations to the press.

    Congress has oversight, so they're calling him to the carpet. The only if in this matter is the Republican controlled Senate. Can Republicans uphold their responsibility to the American people or does undeserved loyalty to Trump come first?

    I'm confident the Senate can see Pelosi's scam for the fraud that it is.  If there's ever an actual impeachment on the evidence (more like, the lack thereof) presented so far, and it gets to the Senate, I'm confident that Republicans in the Senate will uphold their responsibility to the American people and find in favor of the President.  Considering how unpopular impeachment is, all that the Dems are accomplishing with this stunt is ensuring Trump a second term.  Trump's RCP job approval is at a 2-year high and and the impeachment talks have resulted in a fundraising bonanza for Trump's campaign, with Trump raising $1 million in a day.
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 27
    @SkepticalOne

    "Does Congress know what they're doing in regards to impeachment? Yes."

    No, because the entirety of Congress, isn't dogging the President, just some of them are.

    Starring:

    Nancy Pelosi

    Chuck Schumer

    Adam Schiff

    AOC

    Jerry Nadler

    All Green 


    "The president of the US has attempted to use his office to damage a political rival."

    Where's your own evidence to support your claim @ScepticalOne?

    Is your evidence, perhaps the 5 page transcript, that the Public, has seen, and read already?

    "Congress has oversight, so they're calling him to the carpet. The only if in this matter is the Republican controlled Senate."

    The Public, in general, has oversight too, (and so far, from what the Public, and I saw from the Whistleblower Hearing yesterday,) was a collective of Liberals, trying to manufacture a controversy of sorts, around Mr. Maguire, that didn't exist, did it?

    It was great Liberal Theater. 

    And I witnessed a Veteran, handle himself with great candor, character, and professionalism. 

    And the look of Adam Schiffs face, was priceless, (Being that he's also an attorney)
    And that he couldn't garner more "fodder," through his, or his other Liberal brethrens, line of questioning?

    But he and his Liberal counterparts, put on a TV show via the media outlet camera's, and entertained me, and the Public as a whole, were educated, by how those 7 Liberals continue to liberally carry on, in front the media news outlet camera's.

    "The only if in this matter is the Republican controlled Senate. Can Republicans uphold their responsibility to the American people or does undeserved loyalty to Trump come first?"

    You mean like how some of the Liberals, upheld their responsibility to the Public, when Obama was in Office? 

    Because apparently Obama deserved, that type of loyalty that you're maybe alluding to, during his time in office, from some of the Liberals, and some of the news media outlets at the time? 

    I'm about, being fair, and equal, when it comes to debating. 
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @CYDdharta

    What's happening is, the Gang of 7:

    Nancy Pelosi
    Chuck Schumer
    Adam Schiff
    AOC
    Jerry Nadler
    All Green 

    Are trying to manufacture further, a non crises, around the current POTUS, by pushing their Impeachment rhetoric, everyday before the Public's eyes, via the news media outlets, news camera's.

    This is called the Liberal Negativity Game, with the current POTUS, in the middle of the Gang of 7's circle, with these Liberal individuals on a near daily basis, pointing their fingers at him, in a collective way, to coax, or persuade, the Public, into not voting for Trump, in the upcoming 2020 Election.


    And after the 2020 Election, Nancy Pelosi, I believe, won't any longer, be the Speaker of the House, because isn't that the deal that she made with the some of the new Liberals politicians, that were voted into office after the 2018 Election? 

    She, I believe can only be Speaker of the House until then, which in a sense, would make her a Lame Duck Speaker of the House, from my understanding, via the agreement, that she made with those new Liberals, and AOC, being one of them? 

  • No, actually they don't. Several of them made fools of themselves (on BOTH sides, I might add). They need to hire an experienced prosecutor to handle this important a case. They did for Clinton, and HE was convicted about lying about one thing. Getting a consensual BJ. THIS man lied about the non-consensual "screwing of a COUNTRY"! (As well as 11,000 other things [and counting])! HIRE A PROFESSIONAL! Get the job done right.
    CYDdharta
  • AlofRI said:
    No, actually they don't. Several of them made fools of themselves (on BOTH sides, I might add). They need to hire an experienced prosecutor to handle this important a case. They did for Clinton, and HE was convicted about lying about one thing. Getting a consensual BJ. THIS man lied about the non-consensual "screwing of a COUNTRY"! (As well as 11,000 other things [and counting])! HIRE A PROFESSIONAL! Get the job done right.
    Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, he was never convicted by Congress.  Trump hasn't done anything that warrants impeachment, at least nothing that has been presented thus far.
    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @AlofRI

    Where's your evidence, to support your claims?

    "THIS man lied about the non-consensual "screwing of a COUNTRY"! (As well as 11,000 other things [and counting])!
    HIRE A PROFESSIONAL! Get the job done right."

    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    During the Whistleblower Hearing yesterday, these Congressman let Adam Schiff know how they felt about his Liberal demeanor:

    Rep, Brad Wenstrup

    Rep, John Ratcliffe 

    Rep, Michael Turner

    And Rep, Devin Nunes, yesterday expressed the below to Mr. Maguire:

    From CNN:


    https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/videos/politics/2019/09/26/devin-nunes-joseph-maguire-leak-source-bts-vpx.cnn?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15696006752625&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/26/devin-nunes-joseph-maguire-leak-source-bts-vpx.cnn

    https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/26/devin-nunes-joseph-maguire-leak-source-bts-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/this-week-in-politics/

    "Nunes to Maguire: They will use these words against you

    Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes warned the acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire, about words he used during testimony, offering him the chance to clarify."

    The video, and their statements, are very educational.





    AlofRI
  • American democracy will eventually die if the American electorate allows its elected officials to directly or indirectly manipulate options at the ballot box. Trump asked the Ukranian president to investigate one of our own - a political opponent. Nothing is right about that.

    Stop enabling Trump, folks. Hold him accountable to the oath he took to OUR Constitution. This us v. them mentality has some so blinded they are unable to see their freedoms being stolen from right in front of their faces. 
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 27
    @SkepticalOne

    For 8 years, millions enabled President Obama.

    When Obama was in Office, did his Presidency represent the Public as a whole, or did his Presidency,  represent mainly, his individual constituents, and his Liberal base only?

    From what I saw via the thousands of news media outlet hours, Obama represented his constituents, and his individual Presidency.

    And for years now, millions have been enabling the Clinton's.

    And the same thing, happened with Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, via who Clinton's Presidency represented.


    "Stop enabling Trump, folks. Hold him accountable to the oath he took to OUR Constitution. This us v. them mentality has some so blinded they are unable to see their freedoms being stolen from right in front of their faces."
    AlofRI
  • American democracy will eventually die if the American electorate allows its elected officials to directly or indirectly manipulate options at the ballot box. Trump asked the Ukranian president to investigate one of our own - a political opponent. Nothing is right about that.

    Manipulating options at the ballot box occurred in the last election, when the sitting POTUS used, or at the very least allowed, federal agencies to investigate the opposition's candidate based in nothing but rumors, innuendo, and Russian disinformation.  Those agencies then leaked the unsubstantiated claims they were investigating along with the existence of those investigations to the media for the sole purpose on influencing the election.  Trump was merely trying to get to the bottom of 0bama's election interference during the 2016 election.

    Stop enabling Trump, folks. Hold him accountable to the oath he took to OUR Constitution. This us v. them mentality has some so blinded they are unable to see their freedoms being stolen from right in front of their faces.

    What freedoms are being stolen?
    AlofRI
  • @TKDB

    "For 8 years, millions enabled President Obama."

    Millions didn't (including me). Obama is a red herring. Trump's  actions stand or fall on their own merit.
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • @CYDdharta

    The alleged indiscretions of other government officials cannot justify the indiscretions of Trump. This is a shiny object being used to distract away from legitimate criticism (red herring). Our president's action stand or fall on their own merits.

    Limiting (or attempting to limit) opponents at the ballot box is an attack on democracy. 
    CYDdhartaPlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 27
    @SkepticalOne

    "Millions didn't (including me). Obama is a red herring. Trump's  actions stand or fall on their own merit."

    Every Presidents actions STAND on their own merits.

    Why no commentary over Clinton?

    He was Impeached.

    Nixon was Impeached.

    Do you have any RED herring commentary for those Impeached Presidents? 




  • @CYDdharta

    The alleged indiscretions of other government officials cannot justify the indiscretions of Trump. This is a shiny object being used to distract away from legitimate criticism (red herring). Our president's action stand or fall on their own merits.

    Limiting (or attempting to limit) opponents at the ballot box is an attack on democracy. 

    These new allegations are a shiny object being used to keep the President and Congress from doing their jobs. This, just like the Mueller investigation, the efforts to stop the US from being able to control our borders, the obstruction of Trump's SCOTUS picks, objection to Trump's pick for Attorney General, etc., etc., is the red herring.

    The people who tried to undermine our democracy need to be brought to justice.  Their failed coup attempt cannot be ignored.  Many of the same people who were involved in election interference in 2016 are still in office.  They are the ones who are attempting, once again, to limit their opponents at the ballot box.

    SkepticalOne
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @SkepticalOne

    You sound like an Adam Schiff follower?

    "The alleged indiscretions of other government officials cannot justify the indiscretions of Trump. This is a shiny object being used to distract away from legitimate criticism (red herring). Our president's action stand or fall on their own merits.

    Limiting (or attempting to limit) opponents at the ballot box is an attack on democracy."

    Your Liberal counter argument, holds the same bias values that Schiff is politically preaching to his follower, constituent, fanbase. 

    "Millions didn't (including me). Obama is a red herring. Trump's  actions stand or fall on their own merits."

    @SkepticalOne, Why no legitimate counter commentary for the below?

    Every Presidents actions STAND on their own merits.

    Why no commentary over Clinton?

    He was Impeached.

    Nixon was Impeached.

    Do you have any RED herring commentary for those Impeached Presidents?  
  • It's clear from the majority of the posts on this that very few of the members here have ACTUALLY READ the transcript and so here it is.

    https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trumps-ukraine-call-transcript-read-the-document

    Please read it in its entirety before making absurd accusations that call your intelligence into question.

    After reading the entire transcript I can say with all confidence that Trump never asked anyone from Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.  What Trump asked for was any assistance the President of Ukraine could offer our Attorney General with finding out how the prosecution of Joe Biden's SON was suddenly dropped despite the very serious nature of the charges against him.  This in no way, shape, or form equates a "Quid pro quo" or request for a favor that would result in the investigation of Joe Biden.

    Besides that, after the DNC tried to purchase the 2016 election by paying out for a fake dossier full of Russian propaganda and known lies...I don't believe anything Democrats say anymore.  

    I also don't like Republicans either.

    There's too many people that conveniently forget that when Trump appeared on the campaign...neither the RNC or DNC wanted him.  In fact BOTH organizations tried like hell to get rid of him and wanted NOTHING to do with Trump.

    So screw both parties, I'm going to keep voting for anyone who ISN'T a career Liar cough I mean Politician.
    MichaelElpers
    "If there's no such thing as a stupid question then what kind of questions do stupid people ask"?

    "There's going to be a special place in Hell for people who spread lies through the veil of logical fallacies disguised as rational argument".

    "Oh, you don't like my sarcasm?  Well I don't much appreciate your stupid".


  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 28
    @Vaulk

    I watched the news, and listened to the news anchors on Fox news.

    The majority of the news anchors said, that the 5 page transcript found ZERO evidence, of any wrongdoing by the President.

    But then again if you're a Liberal fan, of some of the Liberal news media outlets, they to, were working hard, at pushing a ZERO controversy, by using the transcript, to push their typical Liberal rhetoric talking points. 

    (Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, and AOC, got their Liberal camera time, in as well.)

    Then I watched Adam Schiff excercise his Liberal mindset, at Mr. Maguire, and Mr. Maguire gave him ZERO fodder, to use against the Trump.

    I'm Independent, pro Public, and pro family.


    And here's an odd thing, about some Politicians?

    Adam Schiff, is an attorney.

    President Obama, is an attorney.

    President Clinton, is an attorney.

    President Trump isn't an attorney, but you can get an idea, about how some attorneys, can carry on, through their Ideological word choices?


    Adam Schiff, is self explanatory.

    Just as President Obama, and Clinton are as well.


  • The point of any of this is to change voters minds.  In order to defeat Trump in the next election votes must be swayed, or 4 more years.  I think the Democrats better hope the economy tanks.  None of the fake news stuff is working anymore.


    I come from the standpoint that none of this really matters anyway.  No matter what persons are elected, you'll get the same results.  They are all bought and paid for and gutless.  Nothing gets done until there is a crisis......probably of their own creation.  
  • Isn't it interesting that the rules governing whistle-blowers were secretly changed after the Trump-Zelensky phone call and just days before this latest hack files his complaint, to allow gossip to be used for complaints.  Prior to the change, only first-hand accounts could be used.  This was just another political hit-job attempting to overturn the 2016 election.


    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 28
    @CYDdharta

    I noticed that liberal garbage as well.

    The Public is getting a political education in how some of the Liberal Politicians do things, from the Liberal junkyards of their individual Liberal ideological thinking.

    I watched Adam Schiff the attorney/politician, as he delivered his questions, one after another, and he looked like a vain individual, with contempt all over his face.

    The same look that Naddler, Pelosi, Schumer, AOC, Green, and Clinton have on their faces, each time, that a camera is framing their faces.

    These politicians can say, act out, and do, what they want.

    But couldn't run the country as a whole, because their Liberal mindsets, prevent them from working, for the Public as a whole.

    Because they individually, aren't Politician enough, individually to manage the country from, a fair, and equal platform, that is outside, of their own Liberal agenda's. 

    They should all be embarrassed, being that that didn't go after Obama, like they have with Trump.



    As I mentioned before, to another:


    An odd thing, about some Politicians?

    Adam Schiff, is an attorney.

    President Obama, is an attorney.

    President Clinton, is an attorney.

    President Trump isn't an attorney, but you can get an idea, about how some attorneys, can carry on, through their Ideological word choices?


    Adam Schiff, is self explanatory.

    Just as President Obama, and Clinton are as well.






  • @TKDB

    "Every Presidents actions STAND on their own merits."

    Glad you agree. Trump has (by his own admission) asked a foreign government to investigate a political opponent. Congress opening an impeachment inquiry is justified.
    AlofRICYDdhartaVaulk
  • @CYDdharta

    "These new allegations are a shiny object being used to keep the President and Congress from doing their jobs."

    Another red herring. A government official using a foreign government against political opponents is most certainly deserving of the attention of Congress and the electorate.
    AlofRICYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 28
    @SkepticalOne

    You don't know me, to say, "Glad you agree."

    I'm not feeding from the apparent Liberal buffet, as you appear to be doing? 

    "Trump has (by his own admission) asked a foreign government to investigate a political opponent."

    Where's your legitimate evidence? 

    It's a Liberal Punk Move.

    Hillary Clinton pulled a punk move, with Sanders, during the 2016 Election.

    I guess, she felt like she was owed the Presidency?

    Her other punk move, was deleting 33,000 Emails, and then watching Comey give her a Liberal pass?

    Basically Hillary Impeached herself, from becoming the President, because of her unethical actions? 

    https://themoscowproject.org/tags/fusiongpssteeledossier/

    The Article speaks for itself.


    SkepticalOne
  • @TKDB

    Skepticalone: Trump has (by his own admission) asked a foreign government to investigate a political opponent."

    TKDB: Where's your legitimate evidence

    The transcript of the Trump/Zelensky phone call shows Trump asked Zelensky to "Do us a favor" regarding an investigation into Biden. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
  • @TKDB ;

    Any similarity between Clinton's BJ and what we are seeing from the White House Don is highly irrelevant. Clinton lied under oath. The Don has refused to GO under oath, THAT does not make him innocent. If we get him under oath we will see a FLOOD of lies, I guarantee! After all, that's how he gets those who see what they want to see to enthrone him. 11,000 and counting (not counting the repeats of "same-old"). Clinton's transgressions were  on personal behavior, The Don's are about THAT, plus our national pride and security. His behavior alone, IMO, gives U.S. the right to dig into his "privacy". He has shown a "partiality" to enemies of our country (even partied with them in the Oval Office!)! Hillary Clinton was investigated 7 TIMES on Benghazi with little actual reason to do so …. and NOTHING WAS FOUND! She was brought in to testify  "under oath" even AFTER these dry investigations. 

    The Don's activities, even his own statements, are incriminating, or far more suspect than anything anyone had on Benghazi. The Don should, as other "Dons" have, be forced to give answers under oath. After all, we ARE for "equality" ….. at least U.S. "liberals".

    I remember him saying he'd "gladly show us his Tax Returns" after they were out from under audit. Shouldn't he, at least, show PROOF that they ARE under audit?? That certainly is not an invasion of privacy. He IS a public servant and DOES have some "duty" to be reasonably transparent. ??? 

    Haven't heard or seen much from "Javanka" lately ….. seems like they "got the hell out of Dodge"!??? :smirk:
    CYDdharta
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 28
    @AlofRI

    @SkepticalOne

    You can say, whatever you want.

    I'm not a Liberal Disciple.

    I'm Independent, pro family, and pro Public, and I won't negotiate my life, so that I look like another Liberal Desciple, who apparently, needs to be mentally feed, by the Liberal talking heads, so that their Disciples, aren't able to think for themselves?

    The Adam Schiff Desciples.
    The Nancy Pelosi Desciples.
    The Chuck Schumer Desciples.
    The Al Green Desciples.
    The Bill, and Hillary Desciples.
    The AOC Desciples.
    The Jerry Nadler Desciples.
    And the Barack Obama Desciples.

    Hillary, and Bill, both made fools of themselves before the Public of the United States, on multiple occasions.

    And Bill and Hillary are both attorneys, and attorneys typically distort what the Truth is to make the Public, feel sorry for their troubled, and law breaking clients?


    AlofRI
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 28
    @AlofRI

    "Hillary Clinton was investigated 7 TIMES on Benghazi with little actual reason to do so …. and NOTHING WAS FOUND! She was brought in to testify  "under oath" even AFTER these dry investigations."

    https://www.newenglishreview.org/Jerry_Gordon/Death_in_Benghazi,_Part_I:_The_Attack/


    "Death in Benghazi, Part I: The Attack"

    by Jerry Gordon and Mike Bates with Kenneth R. Timmerman (July 2014)

    "Kenneth R. Timmerman is author of Dark Forces: The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi. It is a gripping exposé, replete with evidence of deception and cover up about who perpetrated the Benghazi attack that killed four Americans; Ambassador Chris Stevens, communications aide Sean Smith, ex-Navy Seals CIA-contractors, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty on 9/11/2012. Dark Forces conveys the thesis that the attacks in Benghazi were preventable. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton bears responsibility for ignoring those warnings, and preventing a military response. Ambassador Stevens and his security team had repeatedly warned Clinton of the precarious security situation in Tripoli and Benghazi requesting additional resources. Clinton, for reasons of her own, opposed any military response to the attacks. U.S. Special Forces operators on the ground that day could have saved the Americans who perished.

    Benghazi was the hub of the U.S. covert arms smuggling to Islamist groups in Libya and Syria. The Administration supplied weapons to fight Qaddafi in Libya and Assad in Syria knowing full well that many of the rebel leaders were al Qaeda operatives. The White House sent members of the National Security "Staff" (ex NSC) to Libya on operational missions to negotiate arms buy-backs from Libyan rebel leaders in an apparent violation of the National Security Act of 1947. A Minimum of 2,500 surface-to-air missiles (MANPADS) went "missing" in Libya. Many of them, upgraded with CIA Technology, have fallen into the hands of al Qaeda terrorists.

    The Iranian regime coordinated the Benghazi attack. The group that took credit for the Benghazi attack, Ansar al-Sharia, was trained and equipped by the Quds Force, the overseas expeditionary arm of Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps. Both the CIA in Benghazi, the Delta Force and Special Operations troops in Tripoli were actively monitoring Iranian operations in Benghazi. They warned their chain of command - including Ambassador Stevens – that Iranians were preparing a terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi. However, they were deceived by a faked kidnapping of Quds Force operatives posing as humanitarian workers by paid Ansar al-Shariah operatives. Timmerman called the Benghazi attack "an act of state terrorism" by Iran’s Quds Force.


    Source: 
    New York Post composite graphic 6-22-14

    Timmerman authored a New York Post article drawn from his book. In it he revealed the shadowy figure who planned and paid for the Quds Force attack that killed the four Americans; its commander, Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleymani, The shadowy Iranian spy chief who helped plan Benghazi. Suleymani is the nexus of the Iranian global terrorism campaign aimed at destabilizing the Middle East.  

    Here are some excerpts:

    Qassem Suleymani is the head of the Quds Force, an organization that acts as a combination CIA and Green Berets for Iran, and a man who has orchestrated a campaign of chaos against the United States around the world.

    Today, the Obama Administration has allied itself with Suleymani to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

    In this case, Iran’s goal — a Shi’ite-friendly government in Iraq — coincides with America’s hope that the country doesn’t fall apart.

    Timmerman cites a former Iranian intelligence source saying:

    “Iran wants chaos. They want to generate anti-American anger, radicalize the rebels, and maintain a climate of war,” … “They are very serious about this. They want to damage the reputation of the United States as a freedom-loving country in the eyes of the Arabs.”

    “In Libya, Iran wanted to block US influence, which they saw as a threat.”…. “They saw the uprising against Khadafy — and the Arab Spring more generally — as an opportunity to accomplish this.”

    Timmerman reveals Suleymani’s central role in the Iranian global terrorism campaign and the murders in Benghazi:

    Suleymani has orchestrated attacks everywhere from Lebanon to Thailand. The US Department of Justice accuses him of trying to hire a Mexican drug cartel to blow up the Saudi Ambassador to the United States while he was in Washington, DC.

    My sources, meanwhile, say Suleymani was involved in an even more direct attack on the US — the killing of Ambassador Christopher Stevens in Benghazi, Libya.

    The details of planning and recruitment of the Ansar al-Shariah militia and the leaders of the Benghazi  attack, Quds Force officer Ibrahim Mohammed Joudaki and Hezbollah operative Khalil Harb, are detailed in Timmerman’s New York Post article. Timmerman concluded with this comment:

    This is the deadly deception we face from Iran. Suleymani may work with us to battle ISIS, but don’t believe for one moment that he’s our friend.

    Timmerman is the New York Times bestselling author of earlier exposés Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran, and Shadow Warriors: The Untold Story of Traitors, Saboteurs and the Party of SurrenderHis thriller fiction works Honor Killing and St.  Peter’s Bones, dealt with an Iranian plot to secret a nuclear device into Washington, DC and the dire threats to the ancient Assyrian Chaldean Christian community in Iraq driving them to secure refuge in their diaspora. Timmerman spent 24 days in a PLO-Fatah dungeon as a captive during the First Lebanon War in 1982. That episode did not deter him from returning to Lebanon, Egypt, Iraq and Israel to report on arms trafficking and state and non-state terrorism. Both he and former UN Ambassador John Bolton were nominated by a former Swedish Foreign Minister for a Nobel Peace Prize their work disclosing Iran’s nuclear program. Read our interview with Timmerman in our NER Press collection, The West Speaks by Jerry Gordon.

    Against the background here is Part I: Death in Benghazi - The Attack. Part II: Death in Benghazi - Will the House Select Committee Find the Truth? Features a discussion with Roger Aronoff, chairman of the Accuracy In Media Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi and Larry Ward of Special Operations Speaks.

    Bates:  Good afternoon and welcome to Your Turn. This is Mike Bates. With me in the studio is Jerry Gordon, a Senior Editor of the New English Review and its blog the Iconoclast. He is also the author of the book, The West Speaks. Jerry, welcome to Your Turn.



     

     

    Gordon:  Glad to be back.

     

    Bates:  We have joining us by telephone from Washington D.C., Kenneth Timmerman. 
     

     

    Timmerman:  Thank you.

     

    Bates:  Timmerman has written a book entitled, Dark Forces; The Truth About What Happened in Benghazi.  Ken, you know with all due respect here, why write a book? We know what happened, I mean some guy in America put out a video. A couple of Muslims didn't like it. They started picketing the place. Things got a little out of hand and what difference does it make at this point?

    Timmerman:  Well that's right and I've got some sea front property in Arizona I would like to sell you too. (laughs).

    Bates:  So what really happened on the night of September 11, 2012?

    Timmerman:  I tell that story in some detail in the book because it has really never been well told. It was a coordinated terrorist attack. It was orchestrated by the Quds Force which is the military overseas strike force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The people who they had hired there, were hired guns. There was also here a pickup team. However, the first people who entered the diplomatic compound came in as a coordinated military attack. They breached the walls. They brought in fifty caliber gun trucks. They put down covering fire so the diplomatic security officers who were there to guard the ambassador would hunker down in a separate building. Then they located the ambassador who was in the Villa. They knew where the safe haven was because they had already done reconnaissance. That is not something that spontaneous protestors would have done. They went down and rattled his cage to make sure he was inside. Once they knew he was inside they went back upstairs and torched the place with diesel knowing that he would perish in the flames and smoke.

    Bates:  So did Chris Stevens die of a beating or from smoke inhalation?

    Timmerman:  He died of smoke inhalation. When I say they rattled his cage I mean quite literally there was a door of metal bars. It was not a solid door. It was a door of metal bars and they rattled that door and banged on it with their AK47’s. Finally, they were pulled back by the leader who was under the control of the Iranians.

    Bates:  So the images that we have seen of Christopher Stevens' body being beaten, was he already deceased at that point?

    Timmerman:  I believe he was, I do not believe he was beaten while he was alive. If they did beat him afterwards it would have been on the way to the hospital. I don't believe that happened. I believe that the video that you have seen of the ambassador being taken out with his shirt sort of undocked and very unkempt, I think that was of really tourists who came along later on. Terrorism tourists or war tourists who came and got his body. They were dressed in designer clothes. They weren't in military fatigues. They weren't part of the attackers and from everything I have been able to gather they actually did deliver him to the hospital.

    Gordon:  Ken, what happened at the Annex? We know that unfortunately two ex-Navy Seals and CIA Contractors were killed with mortar fire. Could the Ansar al-Sharia pick up team do that?

    Timmerman:  That is one of the specific things that I discovered in writing this book. The Libyans had no experienced mortar men, not in the Libyan Army and not amongst the guerilla fighters. The mortar men were Iranians. I believe they were Iranian nationals who came as part of a special unit that arrived in Benghazi on July 31st with a specific intent and orders to carry out this terrorist attack.

    Bates:  Did the State Department have some advanced warnings that these threats were made?

    Timmerman:  They had lots of warnings that the Consulate was going to be under attack. Don't forget that in mid-June of 2012, the British Ambassador was nearly assassinated. There was an attack on his convoy and then the Red Cross was also attacked. There were two attacks on the U.S. Diplomatic Facility in Benghazi as well. So there had been multiple attacks on Western facilities. Everybody knew it. They had countless meetings back in Tripoli to try to figure out what to do. The head of the security team, Lieutenant Colonel Andy Woods, whom I interviewed on multiple occasions for my book, told them we have to either shut down or do things really differently in Benghazi, like have serious security.

    Bates:  Instead they had local Libyans guarding it. I am sort of at a loss other than just gross incompetence because I can't imagine that Hillary Clinton deliberately wanted Ambassador Stevens to be murdered and that building to be torched. I mean, other than just incompetence, why didn't we beef up security or evacuate the premises?

    Timmerman:  She was warned repeatedly. They beseeched her in cable after cable, please send us more security. We need more security officers and she refused to do that. Hillary’s whole shtick if you wish in Libya was that we are not the George W. Bush Administration and we do not occupy Arab countries. We do not go there with our guns ablazing and Marines on the ground. We are friendly with these Muslim groups and they are friendly with us. So she did not want to contradict that by having the appearance of any kind of military presence on the ground. Even the eighteen U.S. Special Forces team who had been there up until August were told not to wear their military uniforms outside of the Embassy compound in Tripoli. Those were Hillary Clinton’s orders.

    Gordon:  Ken, who concocted this fairy tale as you call it in your book about the internet video being the trigger point for this attack?

    Timmerman:  That is frankly Jerry, one of the unanswered questions that I'm hoping Representative Trey Gowdy and his select committee will investigate. They need to obtain the cable traffic, the emails, the exchanges, and the phone logs, all of these interoffice back and forth between Hillary Clinton and her aides. Her office issued the first a press release at 10:08 Washington time on the night of the attacks saying that it was all the fault of an internet video. It came out of her office. We know from what has been released so far there was no reporting out of Libya saying this was a protest having to do with a YouTube video. There was no reporting. All of the reporting was coming out of the embassy in Tripoli. Security people said it was a terrorist attack so she had to know that. We don’t know where that story originated and we need to find that out.

    Bates:  Kenneth, I have read reports elsewhere that some of these terrorists that were attacking the facility in Benghazi were coordinating the attacks using cell phones obtained, most likely stolen, not given, but taken, from the State Department and that American Intelligence Agencies were listening to them in real-time as they planned and carried out the attack. Is that true?

    Timmerman:  I don't have any indication of that. What I do know for a fact is that there was a very sophisticated cat and mouse game going on between the Iranians and the Americans. The CIA who was in the Annex in Benghazi penetrated the Quds Force Communications; their cell phones and VHF radios. The Quds Force had penetrated the Annex communications and the Quds Force knew that the CIA was listening to them which the CIA did not know. Now that sounds a little complicated. The Iranians decided to play a very sophisticated game of deception with the Americans. The CIA knew that the Iranians came to Benghazi July 31st, for operational purposes to carry out of a terrorist attack. Their mission was to watch them and then to stop them. The Iranians said O.K., we're going to pull the wool over their eyes. They staged a kidnapping of terrorist teams by local militias that had been hired by the Iranians so they took them off the street. The CIA said, problem solved, and stopped looking. Of course meanwhile, the Iranians continued to plan and work on its attack.

    Gordon:  Didn’t they come in masquerading as humanitarian aid workers?

    Timmerman:  They faked the kidnapping of a team of Red Crescent workers and these were people who were there ostensibly to conduct humanitarian aid; doctors and people who worked with them, their medical aides.

    Gordon:  Ken, did the orders come from Tehran for this attack in Benghazi?

    Timmerman:  The attack was ordered by Tehran and personally by Qassem Suleymani the head of the Quds Force. He deputized a very senior Revolutionary Guards Commander. I named him in the book. He is a two-star General. He personally came to Libya to make sure that everything happened correctly. He had another Deputy who was the ground commander and there was a third individual, who I also named, who was a very Senior Lebanese Hezbollah militia leader, an Arab. He fit in with the people on the streets so he did not look Iranian. He was their front person. He was the one who was there actually recruiting the fighters and giving them the operational orders on the ground. This was an Iranian operation from start to finish. They used pick up players who weren’t the ones who planned the operation, carried out the surveillance, gave the orders and watched it as it was going on.

    Bates:  Regarding the attack in Benghazi I have heard the facility referred to as an embassy, as a consulate, as a diplomatic facility, as a CIA safe house. What really was the purpose of this structure that was attacked on September 11, 2012 in Benghazi, Libya?

    Timmerman:  Now it's going to get a little bit confusing. There were actually two separate facilities. Two separate villa compounds. The one where the ambassador died was a diplomatic compound which people sometimes referred to as a consulate. Separate from that about a five minute drive away was a heavily armed, heavily fortified CIA Annex compound which was supposed to be top secret. Ostensibly nobody knew about it. However, everybody in Benghazi knew about it. It was well-armed and the security was thorough. Frankly it is beyond me why they didn't keep the Ambassador in that facility rather than the diplomatic compound on the night of September 10th to 11th.

    Gordon:  Ken, what was going on at that facility?

    Timmerman:  The CIA compound was set up during the insurrection in Libya to serve the CIA as a base to arm the rebels because they had a presidential finding from the White House to provide weapons to the rebels against Qaddafi. Part of that operation was, as I reveal in Dark Forces, to give the rebels stinger missiles at  the very beginning of the conflict before NATO started to bomb Qaddafi. The missiles were provided through a cut out, the government of Qatar, and Qatari Special Forces. That is a fascinating story because in the end we tried to get those missiles back. It is one of the reasons they continued to operate the CIA Annex in Benghazi and they failed. So some of the missiles went missing.

    Gordon:  What was the status of John Brennan in this episode?

    Timmerman:  At the time John Brennan, who today is the Director of the CIA, was head of counter-terrorism programs at the White House. In fact he was much more than that. He was actually running the operation in Libya. He dispatched national security staff to Libya in ways which I believe are a violation of the National Security Act of 1947. He sent some there on operational missions to try to get back these missing missiles. I like to call the story of the missing missiles, the original sin; that led to the sin concocted by Hillary Clinton of this YouTube video provoking a protest gone badly.

    Bates:  Kenneth, a few weeks prior to the publication of Dark Forces, American Special Forces captured Abu Khattala who was the alleged leader of this attack. Was that something that we should be really amazed about much like the Bin Laden killing or was this a timed event that was staged. I mean, Khattala was interviewed by western journalists. How hard could he have been to find all of those years?

    Timmerman:  Well, it was kind of choreographed by Hollywood wasn't it? You know Abu Khattala was hiding in plain sight. As you say he was sitting in cafes, sitting in restaurants, talking to western news reporters, not disguised at all. He went to work every day. He was a building contractor and lo and behold it took the U.S. Intelligence Community apparently two years to find him. It took two years for the President to give the order when it was expedient to him politically to go get him.

    Gordon:  Does Iran have an agenda that encompasses that entire region?

    Timmerman:  In Libya their agenda was primarily to kick the Americans out, to smash any semblance of normality to keep the country from recovering. They did not want to see Libya become a modern pro-Western Arabic/Muslim country at peace. So they were really hoping to just perpetuate the violent civil unrest in Libya. Going after our legation, driving the American diplomatic force out of Libya was part of that plan.

    Bates:  I have heard numerous reports that our military was ready to launch a rescue mission or some sort of attack from either Italy or elsewhere in the region and they were given a stand down order. Is that true and who would have given that order?

    Timmerman:  I found no evidence to corroborate that  that type of stand down order was given. However, there were stand down orders given and let me explain. First of all the President of the United States never told the U.S. military to stand up. He never told them, go and do whatever it takes to help our people in Libya. He just told Secretary of Defense Panetta and General Dempsey to  take care of it,  and don't bother me tonight. I have a fundraiser tomorrow in Las Vegas. However, there was an explicit stand down order given by Hillary Clinton. There is an outfit called the Foreign Emergency Search Team and they were on call. They included Special Forces, FBI, CIA, very well armed sitting in Quantico if I'm not mistaken. They could have been in their planes in one or two hours and been in Libya within eight hours. That might have enabled them to have arrived before the final attack that killed Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods at the Annex. Hillary Clinton explicitly told them to stand down. She refused to convene the interagency counter-terrorism group that coordinates all of the assets of U.S. Government. She was the one who actually issued the stand down orders. Now this is important because the Secretary of State alone has authority to ask for military force in support of a U.S. diplomatic facility overseas. It's her responsibility, not even the President’s.

    Gordon:  Ken, what do you think Hillary's reaction is going to be to your book?

    Timmerman:  She has already started to double down claiming again that it's just a You Tube video, maybe it was, maybe it wasn't, maybe it's a little of video, maybe a little not. 

    Bates:  Thank you Kenneth for joining us today on 1330 WEBY. "

    The Truth speaks for itself.

    AlofRI
  • @CYDdharta

    "These new allegations are a shiny object being used to keep the President and Congress from doing their jobs."

    Another red herring. A government official using a foreign government against political opponents is most certainly deserving of the attention of Congress and the electorate.

    Your talk about a red herring is more projection. The last government official that tried to use a foreign government against their political opponents was the Hillary campaign during the 2016 election.  Pres. Trump certainly isn't involved in such activities.  He's still trying to get to the bottom of election interference in the last election, something everyone, especially the Democrats, have been demanding.  Mueller was supposed to have been investigating election interference, he found nothing.  In reality, he wasn't trying to expose election interference in the 2016 election, he was just trying to find something, anything, to charge the President with.  Mueller completely ignored evidence of election interference.  Pres. Trump is abiding by established treaties in trying to root out corruption in Ukraine committed by US citizens. Even Sens Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Durbin (D-IL) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) are more guilty of using a foreign government against a political opponent than Pres. Trump.
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    edited September 29
    @AIofRI



    "Obama, Romney get heated over Libya"

    Watch as Obama, gets upset over Romney's words.


    https://www-bostonherald-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bostonherald.com/2018/09/10/obamas-benghazi-remark-a-new-low/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15697345147529&amp_ct=1569734846771&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/09/10/obamas-benghazi-remark-a-new-low/


    "Obama’s Benghazi remark a new low

    ‘WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY’: Former President Barack Obama speaks in Foellinger Auditorium on the University of Illinois campus in Urbana, Ill., on Friday. Associated Press photo.

    It’s bad enough former President Barack Obama and his then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left four Americans for dead in Benghazi the night radical Islamist terrorists attacked the U.S. consulate in Libya and nearby annex on Sept. 12, 2012, taking the lives of Winchester native Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

    But with the sixth anniversary just days away Obama’s remarks couldn’t be more ill timed or insensitive to the victims’ families, who will suffer through another painful anniversary missing their loved ones.In an outrageous partisan speech delivered at the University of Illinois Friday, Obama sent shockwaves through the social media stratosphere by dismissing the outrage over the 2012 massacre in Benghazi as the result of a “wild conspiracy theory” perpetuated by conservatives and Republican members of Congress."

    "Talk about #FakeNews.

    First off, you don’t need a Harvard degree to know that the flag-draped caskets of four dead Americans that arrived at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland two days after the attack had nothing to do with any “conspiracy.”

    Obama should try telling that to the victims’ families.

    Right-wing conspirators weren’t the ones who cooked up and kept doubling down on the absurd claim that the targeted and prolonged attack, with mortars and other heavy weaponry, was a demonstration over an internet Mohammed-mocking video that just got out of hand.

    They weren’t the ones who lied repeatedly and continued to stonewall the truth, so that we didn’t find out until years later that Hillary Clinton had emailed her daughter, Chelsea, in the immediate aftermath, saying the attack was committed by an al-Qaeda faction — even as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was out there repeating the video line.

    Elites like Obama must think the American people either suffer from amnesia or we’re too stupid to know any better.

    But I do know what happened, as do Herald readers and Herald Radio listeners who remember our interviews with Glen Doherty’s sister and the three CIA contractors on the ground that night who heroically saved dozens of lives fighting off scores of jihadists — terrorists who launched RPG’s and other artillery at patriotic Americans while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went back to bed.

    That six years later Obama is still trying to rewrite history in order to take a cheap shot at President Trump and fellow Republicans is as low as you can go.

    Clearly Democrats don’t have a winning message leading into the midterms if dishonoring the fallen is all they’ve got."

    This is another Educational article.




    AlofRI
  • @CYDdharta

    Your argument consists of "Trump didnt do anything wrong (how dare anyone scrutinize him), and someone (that's not Republican) did something worse". Do you understand what a red herring is? Although, it's probably more of a relative privation fallacy now.

    Trump's request of the Ukranians is not in dispute. You might be of the opinion his actions are appropriate, but you obviously understand using a foreign government for political gain is wrong - at least when someone of the 'them' group does it. So you're not being consistent. Furthermore, the attempted cover-up of the phone records by the White House suggests someone in the 'us' group knew it was wrong too. 
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @SkepticalOne


    https://www-bostonherald-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bostonherald.com/2018/09/10/obamas-benghazi-remark-a-new-low/amp/?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQCKAE=#aoh=15697345147529&amp_ct=1569734846771&referrer=https://www.google.com&amp_tf=From %1$s&ampshare=https://www.bostonherald.com/2018/09/10/obamas-benghazi-remark-a-new-low/


    "Obama’s Benghazi remark a new low

    ‘WILD CONSPIRACY THEORY’: Former President Barack Obama speaks in Foellinger Auditorium on the University of Illinois campus in Urbana, Ill., on Friday. Associated Press photo. 

    "First off, you don’t need a Harvard degree to know that the flag-draped caskets of four dead Americans that arrived at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland two days after the attack had nothing to do with any “conspiracy.”

    Obama should try telling that to the victims’ families.

    Right-wing conspirators weren’t the ones who cooked up and kept doubling down on the absurd claim that the targeted and prolonged attack, with mortars and other heavy weaponry, was a demonstration over an internet Mohammed-mocking video that just got out of hand.

    They weren’t the ones who lied repeatedly and continued to stonewall the truth, so that we didn’t find out until years later that Hillary Clinton had emailed her daughter, Chelsea, in the immediate aftermath, saying the attack was committed by an al-Qaeda faction — even as U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice was out there repeating the video line.

    Elites like Obama must think the American people either suffer from amnesia or we’re too stupid to know any better.

    But I do know what happened, as do Herald readers and Herald Radio listeners who remember our interviews with Glen Doherty’s sister and the three CIA contractors on the ground that night who heroically saved dozens of lives fighting off scores of jihadists — terrorists who launched RPG’s and other artillery at patriotic Americans while Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama went back to bed.

    That six years later Obama is still trying to rewrite history in order to take a cheap shot at President Trump and fellow Republicans is as low as you can go.

    Clearly Democrats don’t have a winning message leading into the midterms if dishonoring the fallen is all they’ve got." 

    The Histories of Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, speak for themselves.

  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @SkepticalOne

    You want to have your way with your argument right?

    The questionable Barack Obama feels the same way with his Presidency.

    The questionable Hillary Clinton feels the same way with her Liberal Legacy.

    The Impeached Bill Clinton, feels the same way with his Presidency. 

    Nancy Pelosi, feels the same way about her Liberal Legacy.

    Chuck Schumer, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    Adam Schiff, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    Al Green, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    AOC, feels the same way about her Liberal Legacy.

    Jerry Nadler, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    And Trump, his Presidency is still in the works.

    I want the Public, to be equally, and fairly represented by those in Public Office.


    Do you feel that what you're presenting to the Public, is a fair and equal argument?

    I'm sorry, but I don't think so.





  • SkepticalOneSkepticalOne 182 Pts
    edited September 29
    @TKDB

    "Do you feel that what you're presenting to the Public, is a fair and equal argument?"

    Yes. Regardless of who the government official is, 'well, [insert politician from opposing party] did X (or worse than X)' isn't a defense - it's a distraction meant to avoid legitimate criticism. Shame on all who do this - you are enablers.
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @SkepticalOne

    You're wrong.

    Do you feel that what you're presenting to the Public, is a fair and equal argument?

    "Yes. Regardless of who the government official is, 'well, [insert politician from opposing party] did X (or worse than X)' isn't a defense - it's a distraction meant to avoid legitimate criticism. Shame on all who do this - you are enablers.

    You're an enabler.

    If you're a Liberal, and you're choosing your Liberal representatives over the Conservative representatives, than your Liberal argument, isn't fair and equal to the Public. 

    Because the below Liberals, have all apparently chosen their Liberal Legacies, over being fair and equal to the Public, because their individual policies, speak towards their individual actions.

    And to be fair and equal, Trump appears to be choosing his Conservative ways, over the rest of the Public, that doesn't agree with his Presidential ways either?

    The questionable Barack Obama feels the same way with his Presidency.

    The questionable Hillary Clinton feels the same way with her Liberal Legacy.

    The Impeached Bill Clinton, feels the same way with his Presidency. 

    Nancy Pelosi, feels the same way about her Liberal Legacy.

    Chuck Schumer, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    Adam Schiff, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    Al Green, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    AOC, feels the same way about her Liberal Legacy.

    Jerry Nadler, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy. 



  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1203 Pts
    edited September 30
    @CYDdharta

    Your argument consists of "Trump didnt do anything wrong (how dare anyone scrutinize him), and someone (that's not Republican) did something worse". Do you understand what a red herring is? Although, it's probably more of a relative privation fallacy now.



    And your argument consists of "Pres. Trump is guilty".  Of what?  You have no idea.  Pres. Trump's conduct is less extreme than that of his political opponents who you have never criticized, but Pres Trump must be guilty because you don't like him.  Pres Trump has been the target of a conspiracy with the dual purpose of overturning the results of a free and fair national election so that a political outsider will never again attempt to defy the ruling class while covering up the staggering amount of corruption the last administration was engaged in.  The bogus assaults on the President are the distraction.  The real crimes are the abuses of power by elected officials and high-level government bureaucrats.  So obviously I DO understand what a red herring is, your position is a textbook example of it.

    Trump's request of the Ukranians is not in dispute. You might be of the opinion his actions are appropriate, but you obviously understand using a foreign government for political gain is wrong - at least when someone of the 'them' group does it. So you're not being consistent. Furthermore, the attempted cover-up of the phone records by the White House suggests someone in the 'us' group knew it was wrong too.

    The claims that Pres Trump was using a foreign government for political gain are more obfuscation and deception.  Of the three cases we've discussed so far, Hillary's 2016 campaign is the only one that undeniably used a foreign government for political gain.  Trump didn't, his outreach to Ukraine was simply an effort to get to the bottom of election interference during the 2016 election, a goal that everyone supports, especially Democrats who felt it necessary to appoint a special council ostensibly to investigate just that issue.  While the Menendez, Durbin, Leahy letter was more obviously an attempt to use a foreign government for political gain, a case could be made that that was an attempt to aid Mueller's floundering investigation, even though Mueller's investigation was nothing more than an attempt to undermine the Trump presidency.  Hillary, through her proxy Christopher Steele, enlisted the aid of foreign government officials in an attempt to sway an election in her favor.  Once again, the one who lacks consistency is you.

  • @CYDdharta

    You've gone off into conspiracy theory territory (Impeachment inquiry is not about hating Trump..) while doubling down on the logical faults I've called out. I'm afraid our conversation has reached the limits of usefulness.
  • TKDBTKDB 290 Pts
    @SkepticalOne

    You're wrong.

    Do you feel that what you're presenting to the Public, is a fair and equal argument?

    "Yes. Regardless of who the government official is, 'well, [insert politician from opposing party] did X (or worse than X)' isn't a defense - it's a distraction meant to avoid legitimate criticism. Shame on all who do this - you are enablers.

    You're an enabler, if you're a Liberal, and you're choosing your Liberal representatives over the Conservative representatives, than your Liberal argument, isn't fair and equal to the Public. 

    Because the below Liberals, have all apparently chosen their Liberal Legacies, over being fair and equal to the Public, because their individual policies, speak towards their individual actions.

    And to be fair and equal, Trump appears to be choosing his Conservative ways, over the rest of the Public, that doesn't agree with his Presidential ways either?

    The questionable Barack Obama feels the same way with his Presidency.

    The questionable Hillary Clinton feels the same way with her Liberal Legacy.

    The Impeached Bill Clinton, feels the same way with his Presidency. 

    Nancy Pelosi, feels the same way about her Liberal Legacy.

    Chuck Schumer, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    Adam Schiff, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    Al Green, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.

    AOC, feels the same way about her Liberal Legacy.

    Jerry Nadler, feels the same way about his Liberal Legacy.  

    And I have a feeling, that you feel the same way, about your Argument style? 
  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1203 Pts
    edited September 30
    @CYDdharta

    You've gone off into conspiracy theory territory (Impeachment inquiry is not about hating Trump..) while doubling down on the logical faults I've called out. I'm afraid our conversation has reached the limits of usefulness.

    ROFL, you should have just admitted your position is untenable instead of embarrassing yourself with this post of pure projection.  Apparently you forgot this is a debating site.  People are going to debate poster's positions, not just soak up mindless drivel such as what you've posted.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch