VP Biden’s quid pro quo threat to Ukraine...

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
It's not a court of law at all and nothing you're whining about applies. Trump will get a chance to present his side at the Senate Trial. We are now at the equivalent of Grand Jury proceedings and no the accused don't get to call witnesses at that point in the process. Trump abused the power of the Presidency to attempt to extort a foreign country to help him politically. It's very impeachable whether or not it's illegal. Need we play you Little Lindsey Graham's comments on impeachment again?
I’ve address the “this is the equivalent of a grand jury” BS before, and pointed out what Bga did, that it is done out of the public view to protect the accused from an assumption of guilt. It’s interesting, though, that you say it’s “not a court of law”, but use legal proceedings to compare it to. That’s dumb.

It’s also amazing that you say that “Trump will get a chance to present his side at the Senate Trial”. You were outraged when Barr wrote his Mueller conclusions letter b/c we had to wait a few weeks to get the full Mueller Report, and the Barr letter was an accurate reflection of the Mueller findings. Here, Schiffshow and Pelosi concluded him guilty after hearing the news media’s bogus representation of the so-called WB account and are taking months before Trump will get a chance to defend himself. Hypocrite.

It’s also remarkable that you lefties want to lower the bar for impeachment when removal from office via impeachment should require a high standard when overturning the will of the people and our electoral system. It’s a dangerous precedent that you and “the fellas” appear to have no qualms about using in order to get the outcome that you want.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,076
Reaction score
392
Points
83
I’ve address the “this is the equivalent of a grand jury” BS before, and pointed out what Bga did, that it is done out of the public view to protect the accused from an assumption of guilt. It’s interesting, though, that you say it’s “not a court of law”, but use legal proceedings to compare it to. That’s dumb.

It’s also amazing that you say that “Trump will get a chance to present his side at the Senate Trial”. You were outraged when Barr wrote his Mueller conclusions letter b/c we had to wait a few weeks to get the full Mueller Report, and the Barr letter was an accurate reflection of the Mueller findings. Here, Schiffshow and Pelosi concluded him guilty after hearing the news media’s bogus representation of the so-called WB account and are taking months before Trump will get a chance to defend himself. Hypocrite.

It’s also remarkable that you lefties want to lower the bar for impeachment when removal from office via impeachment should require a high standard when overturning the will of the people and our electoral system. It’s a dangerous precedent that you and “the fellas” appear to have no qualms about using in order to get the outcome that you want.
It's not a court of law. But if you want to whine about process and compare the two, at least compare apples to apples.

Barr wrote a BS summary that misrepresented what Mueller's report actually said. Despite Trump's lies to the contrary, there is no evidence that any of the transcripts being released are "doctored." If there was. the R's who were in the hearings would be screaming bloody murder. Also, neither Schiff or Pelosi have concluded him "guilty". Why do you lie?

This is much more straightforward than the Mueller report. There's nothing to spin or muddy the water with. That's why it's easy for everyone to see he's guilty and Republicans can only scream about process and pound the table. Even Lyin' Bill Barr can't spin it.

Lower the bar? The R's impeached Clinton for far less than this and hypocrite Lindsey Graham was among the most adamant. Spare me.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,076
Reaction score
392
Points
83
I think he might get impeached. The Dems might really be that stupid. But he's not going to get removed with what is presently known. The Dems feel desperate enough that they think their best shot is to kangeroo court impeach him so that they can say to stupid people..."Trump was impeached"...it's like an exercise in branding. As far as the popularity of the move, it is already losing steam so they will need to do this in a hurry. Trump seems excited about letting this second transcript out so I don't think it is going to be helpful to the Dems. Obviously the fake WB is a total mess. Schiff is wishing he had picked someone else at this point.... :)
He will be impeached. He will not be convicted. But we will see how many R's in the Senate still have a soul. Romney and maybe 2-3 others. I hope they get to 51, because it will drive Trump insane if they do.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
It's not a court of law. But if you want to whine about process and compare the two, at least compare apples to apples.

Barr wrote a BS summary that misrepresented what Mueller's report actually said. Despite Trump's lies to the contrary, there is no evidence that any of the transcripts being released are "doctored." If there was. the R's who were in the hearings would be screaming bloody murder. Also, neither Schiff or Pelosi have concluded him "guilty". Why do you lie?

This is much more straightforward than the Mueller report. There's nothing to spin or muddy the water with. That's why it's easy for everyone to see he's guilty and Republicans can only scream about process and pound the table. Even Lyin' Bill Barr can't spin it.

Lower the bar? The R's impeached Clinton for far less than this and hypocrite Lindsey Graham was among the most adamant. Spare me.
Congratulations. That is one of the dumbest, most dishonest word salads that you have ever written.

Nothing Barr wrote “misrepresented” Mueller’s report. It just bottom lined it, without all the meaningless implications that Mueller’s team wrote for him. You and I are in no position to know anything about transcripts being “doctored”, but the difference is you claim to know. Personally, I don’t know why they have to be doctored when the process is already unjust and unAmerican.

Yes, the process has sucked and been slanted by Schiffshow. Unfortunately for you, the unjust process still doesn’t produce substantive evidence that Trump used a QPQ to extort Ukraine. It’s the Dems story, and they’re sticking to it, even if it isn’t true.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He actually broke the law. And, his impeachment was significantly bi-partisan in the House. Schiffshow and Pelosi may not get any House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,076
Reaction score
392
Points
83
Congratulations. That is one of the dumbest, most dishonest word salads that you have ever written.

Nothing Barr wrote “misrepresented” Mueller’s report. It just bottom lined it, without all the meaningless implications that Mueller’s team wrote for him. You and I are in no position to know anything about transcripts being “doctored”, but the difference is you claim to know. Personally, I don’t know why they have to be doctored when the process is already unjust and unAmerican.

Yes, the process has sucked and been slanted by Schiffshow. Unfortunately for you, the unjust process still doesn’t produce substantive evidence that Trump used a QPQ to extort Ukraine. It’s the Dems story, and they’re sticking to it, even if it isn’t true.

Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. He actually broke the law. And, his impeachment was significantly bi-partisan in the House. Schiffshow and Pelosi may not get any House Republicans to vote for impeachment.
The Rs who were in the hearings are in position to know if any transcripts are doctored. Do you honestly think they would stay silent? Of course not. It's Trump flat out lying once again. There is nothing unjust or UnAmerican about following the Constitution and holding the President accountable for his abuses. And stop with the "overturning the will of the people" canard. This is not an undoing of the election. Nothing he's done a President is being reversed.

Trump has committed literally dozens of acts of obstruction first with Mueller and now by blocking witnesses from testifying. The only reason he hasn't committed perjury is that he refused to testify to Mueller because his handlers knew he would commit perjury. And instead of getting a BJ from an intern he illegally used campaign funds to pay off his hookers and porn stars. That so much better.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
This has nothing to do with “following the Constitution”. It’s a political process allowed by the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress enough rope to hang itself with.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,076
Reaction score
392
Points
83
This has nothing to do with “following the Constitution”. It’s a political process allowed by the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress enough rope to hang itself with.
All is well then. You and the R's should welcome it instead of freaking out and panicking.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
All is well then. You and the R's should welcome it instead of freaking out and panicking.
Not panicking. Just sick of the MSM covering and being complicit in Dems politics. Like the Trump-Russia collusion narrative for 2 and 1/2 years.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
On CNN’s Town Hall with Joe Biden, Biden was asked whether Hunter should testify at the impeachment hearings. Biden said: “there’s zero rationale for that to happen. Nobody has suggested anything was done that was inappropriate. This is all a diversion. This is classic Trump.”

That sounds an awful lot like “the call was perfect. We did nothing wrong. This is a witch-hunt by the Democrats”.

Unless you have TDS. Then it’s completely different.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
193
Reaction score
2
Points
18
That was not a transcript, it was notes, and made up notes at that. The WH even admitted that the notes were drafted after the meeting by several days. There is no need for these career civil servants to get up one morning and start a conspiracy and have motive to do so. What these people did is fairly simple. In their good conscience, they heard the President, were alarmed at his overt takedown of both policy and law and they properly called on others to sound the alarm. And, they were not motivated by anything other than respect for the law and the history of respecting the rule of law. I don't think it is very hard to grasp when you see people everyday go to work as civil servants to follow the law. People have professional standards and try to maintain those over a course of a career are going to do the right thing. It is as American as apple pie. It is why we admire the phrase "to form a more perfect union", which is an action statement, not a resolved goal. It is why we teach Sunday School, have a Boy Scout pledge, have professional associations with codes of conduct and teach law in civics classes across America. Americans have instilled values of nation and government. Now, I know you hate that government and the people it represents, but honestly, how hard is it for you to see their statements as evidence and not conspiracy to take poor, poor, cheating Don Trump down? DJT is a fraud who loves to create conspiracy to cover his tracks and cause confusion in the unschooled.

By the way, what is your degree in and what professional code do you live by?
It’s not necessary to lick the balls of a seditious overweight 0-5 to prove you’re anti-trump.
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,095
Reaction score
248
Points
63
As usual with McCarthy (who started out anti- Trump) he is very long and thoughtful in his analysis and he diligently plays out both sides' reasoning. His conclusion is revealing:

Remember, the Ukrainians got their defense aid – which was in addition to defense aid President Trump was already providing to them, aid that President Obama denied for years, with no objection from Democrats, despite Russian aggression. The Ukrainians did not have to agree to investigate the Bidens to get the aid.

Plus, there would have been nothing wrong with Trump’s conditioning aid to a notoriously corrupt country on its commitment to combat corruption generally; nor would there be any impropriety in the president’s asking Ukraine to assist the Justice Department’s ongoing probe of the origins of the Obama administration’s 2016 Trump-Russia investigation – which appears to have had a Ukrainian component (Ukrainian investigative agencies being pressed by American agencies and Democrats to investigate Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign chairman; Ukrainian officials colluding with the Clinton campaign).

To ask whether a president engaged in misconduct is usually to posit a clear-cut question. To ask whether a president committed an impeachable offense, however, is a loaded question. It implies the fraught political calculation: Is what happened so serious that the president should be removed from office.

As the Framers’ formula instructs, and as President Bill Clinton’s impeachment confirms, the answer to that question is: It depends. On the facts of the Ukraine episode, the answer is no.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,851
Reaction score
131
Points
63
As usual with McCarthy (who started out anti- Trump) he is very long and thoughtful in his analysis and he diligently plays out both sides' reasoning. His conclusion is revealing:

Remember, the Ukrainians got their defense aid – which was in addition to defense aid President Trump was already providing to them, aid that President Obama denied for years, with no objection from Democrats, despite Russian aggression. The Ukrainians did not have to agree to investigate the Bidens to get the aid.

Plus, there would have been nothing wrong with Trump’s conditioning aid to a notoriously corrupt country on its commitment to combat corruption generally; nor would there be any impropriety in the president’s asking Ukraine to assist the Justice Department’s ongoing probe of the origins of the Obama administration’s 2016 Trump-Russia investigation – which appears to have had a Ukrainian component (Ukrainian investigative agencies being pressed by American agencies and Democrats to investigate Paul Manafort, Trump’s one-time campaign chairman; Ukrainian officials colluding with the Clinton campaign).

To ask whether a president engaged in misconduct is usually to posit a clear-cut question. To ask whether a president committed an impeachable offense, however, is a loaded question. It implies the fraught political calculation: Is what happened so serious that the president should be removed from office.

As the Framers’ formula instructs, and as President Bill Clinton’s impeachment confirms, the answer to that question is: It depends. On the facts of the Ukraine episode, the answer is no.
Exactly. Dems seem to be saying, yeah we couldn't prove it, but there's like a 30% chance something unethical or illegal happened with Trump and Russia. Maybe a 20% chance that there was a direct quid pro quo and an unethical push to get "dirt" on Biden. If we get a couple more "bombshells" that add up to 100%, can we impeach him?
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,095
Reaction score
248
Points
63
Why was the "whistleblower/leaker/spy" Eric Ciaramella so concerned about the phone call he likely heard about from Vindman? Well, it appears the Ciaramella led a WH meeting with the Urkainian delegation in January of 2016, where the Urkainians say that two things were asked: 1. Get the black ledger revived - which would show Paul Manafort's dealings (they did it) 2. Drop the Biden/ Burisma investigation and hand it over to the FBI (they did not hand it over to the FBI but they did move it to NABU, who dropped the case.

No wonder the WB cannot be questioned. :)
 

bga1

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
37,095
Reaction score
248
Points
63
Your point?
He was the most factual writer they have and they labeled him "opinion" because his research didn't match their narrative. That's what lefties do. For you it is not a search for facts, it's a search for validation of your beliefs.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,623
Reaction score
64
Points
48
Your point?
He was the most factual writer they have and they labeled him "opinion" because his research didn't match their narrative. That's what lefties do. For you it is not a search for facts, it's a search for validation of your beliefs.






https://thehill.com/contact/about-us
https://www.propublica.org/article/giuliani-was-close-to-a-podcast-deal-with-the-news-outlet-that-spread-his-ukraine-conspiracies
https://observer.com/2011/04/the-trump-campaigns-organizing-principals-2/
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,623
Reaction score
64
Points
48
The Republicans on the committee called this witness:






I repeat, the Republicans on the committee called this witness
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
Volker having a high opinion of Joe Biden, a very good friend of McCain’s who Volker deeply admired, is immaterial. We aren’t looking for character witnesses. We should be looking at the relationship that Hunter Biden had with Burisma and whether he was used it to change US policy actions or favors, directly or indirectly, for Burisma. And VP Biden’s ethical responsibilities in allowing such a profitable relationship to exist between his inexperienced and expertise lacking son and a corruption company in a corrupt country that the VP is highly involved in.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,623
Reaction score
64
Points
48
Volker having a high opinion of Joe Biden, a very good friend of McCain’s who Volker deeply admired, is immaterial. We aren’t looking for character witnesses. We should be looking at the relationship that Hunter Biden had with Burisma and whether he was used it to change US policy actions or favors, directly or indirectly, for Burisma. And VP Biden’s ethical responsibilities in allowing such a profitable relationship to exist between his inexperienced and expertise lacking son and a corruption company in a corrupt country that the VP is highly involved in.
Maybe Republicans should call Giuliani then, since he's the source of all these allegations.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
40,851
Reaction score
131
Points
63
Sure Kurt, Joe would NEVER do anything like that. Very very high character. So high that he never even spoke of his son's business dealings with him on a 15 hour flight to China to meet with government officials to talk business. It takes a very special high character to do that.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
We’ve now established that Hunter Biden is a blatant liar. Says he never had sexual relations with a woman, but DNA testing proves he’s the father of her baby.

 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
7,623
Reaction score
64
Points
48
Why would I have to disavow Rudy? Rudy is Trump's attorney and is getting at the corruption that was underlying the false accusations against Trump. Do you think that the President is not allowed a defense?
 

Dean S

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
6,601
Reaction score
76
Points
48
This has nothing to do with “following the Constitution”. It’s a political process allowed by the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress enough rope to hang itself with.
Yes, it has everything to do with the Constitution. Nothing gets done in Washington without it being part of the Constitution. Nothing.
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
11,334
Reaction score
46
Points
48
Yes, it has everything to do with the Constitution. Nothing gets done in Washington without it being part of the Constitution. Nothing.
I didn’t say it didn’t have to do with the Constitution. I said it has nothing to do with following the Constitution, but what was “allowed” by the Constitution.

Dean, did you have a stroke or something? You’re having some problems communicating.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
38,076
Reaction score
392
Points
83
We’ve now established that Hunter Biden is a blatant liar. Says he never had sexual relations with a woman, but DNA testing proves he’s the father of her baby.

And Trump said Stormy Daniels was lying. Where was your outrage then?
 
Top Bottom