trump Inpeachment...............

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by BaltimoreSkins

Did Trump say hey investigate this that would be great or did he say hey investigate this or I will withhold funds, I think that is what is on trial in the senate here not whether a president has a right to seek out corruption.

FWIW I think discussing Hunter Biden and Burisma corruption is a smart move by Republicans. I genuinely think it makes Joe un-electable.

I really don’t want Bernie...I think Biden in general wouldn’t be bad because he is woke now, but will pivot in the general election

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Hunter Biden was the source of the corruption Trump sought out, correct? So if it found that indeed he was corrupt or laws were broken then vetting out corruption by the administration is justified.

So how is Hunter Biden not significant?

What specifically did Hunter Biden do? What was the corruption?

If you say to get the prosecutor fired, that has been proven wrong. Joe, the US and international community wanted the prosecutor gone bc the prosecutor wasnt investigating and prosecuting.

Hunter Biden had nothing to do with whatever investigation was going on with Burisma. That investigation was going on before Hunter joined the board.

There is nothing linking Hunter to any corruption.

Trump just wanted Ukraine to announce they were opening an investigation into Hunter Biden for political reasons. He didnt care what for, he just wanted them to say it.

There is no there, there.

[Chico23231]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

What specifically did Hunter Biden do? What was the corruption?

If you say to get the prosecutor fired, that has been proven wrong. Joe, the US and international community wanted the prosecutor gone bc the prosecutor wasnt investigating and prosecuting.

Hunter Biden had nothing to do with whatever investigation was going on with Burisma. That investigation was going on before Hunter joined the board.

There is nothing linking Hunter to any corruption.

Trump just wanted Ukraine to announce they were opening an investigation into Hunter Biden for political reasons. He didnt care what for, he just wanted them to say it.

There is no there, there.

Follow the timeline I’ve posted. No Hunter Biden wasn’t cleared and if he is the source and you want to call witnesses, then have him testify.
Would u be ok with that?

[Chico23231]

Why would hunter even be on the board? This wasn’t fedex, newspaper, etc.

This was a fucking corrupt Ukraine oligarch...why was hunter there? Access politically to the US government.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Pelosi and the House should have issued subpoenas then went to the court to enforce those subpoenas, likely drawing out the process by a year or so. They shouldnt have expected a republican majority Senate to do additional fact finding.

I agree, but they didn't exactly because no one wants this to drag out for a year in the courts... which, they wouldn't have to, if Trump were willing to cooperate like Clinton. Instead, he wants to prevent a constitutional process from being carried out b refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Which an innocent person would have no reason to do.

Still, when it all plays out, I think the Democrats may wish they have taken this approach.

But, as Jim Zorn once said, Hindsights always 50/50

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Why would hunter even be on the board? This wasn’t fedex, newspaper, etc.

This was a fucking corrupt Ukraine oligarch...why was hunter there? Access politically to the US government.

So, you're saying that, if one corrupt president suspects that his opponents son was guilty of corruption, he has a right to break the law to try and expose his opponent?

That's like getting arrested for robbing a bank and then arguing that it wasn't a crime because I was just trying to get back the fees i believed they illegally charged my account. Even if it were proven that I was right, and they did charge me illegal fees, it wouldn't justify my, more serious, criminal act.

[BigHairedAristocrat]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Give me the source where the President laid out this conditions for aid

When you do, contact Adam Scheft and Nancy P. You are walking out theories not based on the evidence.

Can you answer, why wasn't criminal charges brought in the articles?

This is exactly what is supported by a lot of "second hand" evidence. Bolton is claiming he has first hand knowledge of this, which is why he needs to testify. Then, the Senate can determine whether he is telling the Truth.

If Trump is innocent of these accusations, he can produce documents to prove so. Instead, he's refused to cooperate and even bragged about the fact that he has the documents and isn't sharing them. Innocent men have nothing to hide. Only guilty people do.

The best thing for the American people is for ALL evidence to be provided, and ALL relevant witnesses to testify. Then, there will be two outcomes:

1) The President will be completely exonerated and the Democrats will have been proven to have engaged in an awful, damaging and divisive witch-hunt.
2) The President will be found guilty, and Republicans will have to decide whether or not to uphold their oath to the constitution or to be cowards.

In the end, the American people would know the truth about its politicians and make INFORMED decisions in upcoming elections.

Instead, what will happen is the full truth will never come out. It will just be a he-said/she-said situation and Americans on both sides will remain in whatever camps they already are, with both sides continuing to despise the other for their perceptions about how all of this played out. We won't learn anything. We won't move on. The country will continue to remain divided.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by BigHairedAristocrat

This is exactly what is supported by a lot of "second hand" evidence. Bolton is claiming he has first hand knowledge of this, which is why he needs to testify. Then, the Senate can determine whether he is telling the Truth.

If Trump is innocent of these accusations, he can produce documents to prove so. Instead, he's refused to cooperate and even bragged about the fact that he has the documents and isn't sharing them. Innocent men have nothing to hide. Only guilty people do.

The best thing for the American people is for ALL evidence to be provided, and ALL relevant witnesses to testify. Then, there will be two outcomes:

1) The President will be completely exonerated and the Democrats will have been proven to have engaged in an awful, damaging and divisive witch-hunt.
2) The President will be found guilty, and Republicans will have to decide whether or not to uphold their oath to the constitution or to be cowards.

In the end, the American people would know the truth about its politicians and make INFORMED decisions in upcoming elections.

IF X IS INNOCENT HE MUST PROVE IT

the law of the land?

I thought it was - IF THE STATE BELIEVES X IS GUILTY THE BURDEN LIES ON THEM TO PROVE IT. The STATE could have called witnesses and gotten their testimony into the legal record. They could have, as is done in EVERY court in the land, issued subpoenas, and defend the subpoenas validity in front of the court, and then, once validated, brought the case to trial.

Arguments are so out of whack with our ideal of justice, all because one side hates the other, AND the other is an idiot.

[CRedskinsRule]

Furthermore, I go back to if you assume the absolute worst that additional evidence and witnesses for the STATE would show that a President, while acting within a generally recognized US policy(rooting out corruption) sought to make aid also contigent on specific actions that would also provide political gain -

as a quick aside - an impeachable offense to me would be PROOF that a President aided a foreign country changing or tampering with official electronic ballots. If Trump or anyone did that, it would be Treason.

- but in the end, let's even say Trump dastardly scheme worked, and an investigation was announced. At best Trump would have a talking point. So we are going to impeach and kick out a president over attempting to gain talking point advantages.

And who was going to buy this talking point? Democrats, who hate Trump and voted for Hillary?, Republicans (80%+ who support Trump), seriously the political capital that this "talking point" might have gained is simply not an election breaker.

It's ridiculous on it's face

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by Chico23231

Follow the timeline I’ve posted. No Hunter Biden wasn’t cleared and if he is the source and you want to call witnesses, then have him testify.
Would u be ok with that?

The timeline you posted doesnt show any link to Hunter Biden and corruption. What that shows is that he was hired by a company that was being investigated for corruption before he was hired.

You say "Hunter Biden is the source of the corruption" .. but have 0 facts or evidence to point. Who did Hunter Biden collude with? what was he after? ... theres nothing except he was hired by a company accused of corruption before he got there.

If there is something more, Id love to see it.

Trump: "I want you to announce that you are investigating Hunter Biden."

Ukraine: "Yes sir, ... for what exactly?"

Trump: "I dont care make it up, just say the words 'Hunter Biden' and 'corruption' and 'investigation' in the same sentence."

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

The timeline you posted doesnt show any link to Hunter Biden and corruption. What that shows is that he was hired by a company that was being investigated for corruption before he was hired.

You say "Hunter Biden is the source of the corruption" .. but have 0 facts or evidence to point. Who did Hunter Biden collude with? what was he after? ... theres nothing except he was hired by a company accused of corruption before he got there.

If there is something more, Id love to see it.

Trump: "I want you to announce that you are investigating Hunter Biden."

Ukraine: "Yes sir, ... for what exactly?"

Trump: "I dont care make it up, just say the words 'Hunter Biden' and 'corruption' and 'investigation' in the same sentence."

I suppose that would be why Hunter Biden, Joe Biden would be effective witnesses.

[SunnySide]

Failure to properly investigate Burisma Holdings

In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.[33][34]

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".[22] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[33]

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[35][36] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

In a sworn affidavit dated 4 September 2019,[37] for a European court, Shokin testified that "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."[38] Shokin wrote the affidavit in support of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.[39] John Herbst, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, said that Shokin's support of Firtash, who had been arrested for bribery in 2014, undercuts Shokin's claims to be motivated by transparency.[40][41]

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[29][42][43] However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[44][45]

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[46] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[47] US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/u...ine-trump.html

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

I suppose that would be why Hunter Biden, Joe Biden would be effective witnesses.

Wanting the Bidens to testify is just a ploy to muddy the waters and steer this farther in the absurd, imo.

Ive spent a good bit on this thread today .... and have achieved absolutely zero. We are all tribal.

[CRedskinsRule]

Originally Posted by SunnySide

Wanting the Bidens to testify is just a ploy to muddy the waters and steer this farther in the absurd, imo.



Ive spent a good bit on this thread today .... and have achieved absolutely zero. We are all tribal.

Here is the thing, maybe it does muddy the waters but as the defense/accused the president should be given every opportunity to defend himself and call witnesses that make his case, and part of his case includes whether or not it can be legitimately argued that Biden and Burisma have direct relevance to Trump's asking Ukraine to investigate.

Rights of the ACCUSED are what fair trials are supposed to preserve and safeguard.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[SunnySide]

Originally Posted by CRedskinsRule

Here is the thing, maybe it does muddy the waters but as the defense/accused the president should be given every opportunity to defend himself and call witnesses that make his case, and part of his case includes whether or not it can be legitimately argued that Biden and Burisma have direct relevance to Trump's asking Ukraine to investigate.

Rights of the ACCUSED are what fair trials are supposed to preserve and safeguard.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Im with you ... Im 100% fine with Bidens, Trump, Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton testifying under oath.