GOP complains impeachment hearings are held in secret, votes to keep them in secret

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.09.2019 01:31PM

Ethan. You're back. What a... well, no, not a surprise. What do you call it when you full expect something, and it happens?

Did you also expect that the guy keeping me away would do what I predicted and have to resign? I did.

The only reason trump was able to win was because of the poor design of the electoral system.

Like the only way the Washington Nationals were able to win was because of the poor design of the MLB system?

You question was this: "Like the majority of Americans supported Hillery?"
Of those that actually responded to the poll, the majority did support Hillary.

Like of those that actually played the game, the majority did obey the rules?.

The problem is your likening, not the reality that contradicted it.

Both Trump and Hillery knew the rules before they ran. Trump won fairly. Get over it.

Anyone who has been paying attention.

I've been paying attention...

Debatable.

Debate it then. This is a debate site.

It is a crime to ask for a thing of value from a foreigner to help you in an election.

The, " to help you in an election" part is you substituting your assumption for his intention. Trump asked for an investigation. It was his duty to do so.

I am pretty confident the laws of the Ukraine are for the Ukraine to investigate, not Trump.

Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.

Secondly, 'assumption of intention' was laid out by name. "Look into some corruption regarding XYZ company" would have avoided this whole mess,

Nothing would have avoided the dems seeking some conflagration. Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law

but no one ever accused Trump of being smart.

Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.

Just to head your rebuttal off at the pass "... do us a favor..." is not the office of the President's duty to receive.

He referred his AG. And statute says the president must ensure there is no corruption before forking over the country's money.

Trump asked the president of ukraine for dirt on Biden. These facts are publicly available to anyone who cares.

This is simply untrue. The word "dirt" is never uttered by the president. He asked that the issue be investigated.

Again. Considering it already was once, and the specific names mentioned by Trump were never under scrutiny, it lends itself to a "favor" being wanted. Not "justice".

The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime? "Do me a favor" is common language. You want to convict Trump on your baseless assumption.

He asked about Biden by name.

Of course he did! Biden was a part of the situation, and Biden and his son were America's only interest in the issue.

Why were they of interest, again?

His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money. And it had been established that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election.

If it was a general request to look into corruption he wouldn't have named Biden.

Illogical. ...

Asking for "a favor" isn't in that agreed upon treaty.

The word "favor" is not a crime, no matter how you try to criminalize it. Trump wanted the matter investigated. He was completely proper to want it.

The moment he asked for that he committed a crime.

Nonsense. He asked for an investigation, had he wanted dirt on Biden, he would have just asked for dirt. An investigation could have cleared Biden.

Considering Biden was never named, and there was an investigation, that actually started before Hunter was on the board at Burisima (sp?),

He was on the board when his VP father bragged on tape of doing exactly what you are now irrationally accusing Trump of doing.

...its probably a safe assumption that whatever Trump is looking for is nothing more than something exemplified in his own house.

Probably a safe assumption huh? Impeach!

Statements can very easily be criminal.

And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.

Remind me... who is the accused? Because its not Joe B or Hunter at the moment.

Whomever it is, the person deserves due process.

A statement asking for dirt from a foreigner to help in an election is also a crime.

He did not ask for dirt, that is your assumption you are trying to artificially elevate into fact.

Well, most people aren't deliberately obtuse, Ethan.

Most people do not suffer from TDS either. No one will be convicted on your biased assumptions. Thank God for the Senate.

He did not ask to help his election bid...

Its just happy coincidence that election season is right around the corner, and this wasn't brought up 2 years ago.

The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid. That is the intent dems are trying to hoist on him. A person cannot be convicted on crimes you assume.

What were those crimes, again, against the Bidens? Riiiiiiight. Spurious allegation.

Nonsense. Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?

Trump has been proven to have committed 1 crime already.

Then why do we need a trial? Hmmm?

Considering we are talking impeachment and not 'trial', this is a non-sequitur. HoR and Senate are not courts of law, they are the board ousting the CEO.

Trying to. On trumped up charges. They will fail.

Its up to law enforcement to indict, but in much as the person whom would indict was hand picked by Trump, we see a flaw in the system.

The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.

You tell me what president has used funds approved by congress to blackmail a foreign government into helping him win an election.

Barrack Hessien Obama through his VP Biden. Would you like me to send you the video link of Biden bragging that he used funds approved by congress to successfully blackmail a foreign government?

You only read half the question. Re-read it, Ethan.

The only president who has used funds approved by congress to blackmail a foreign government is Obama.

...there is no suggestion Biden ever broke a law.

Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?

The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand.

With the original investigator sacked and the new one knowing that the crooked US VP would be back if he stepped out of line.

Hunter Biden was both a lawyer and a lobbyist by trade. If you think a gas company has no need for lawyers or lobbyists, you are deluding yourself. Hunter's salary as reported was about 50K a month. If you consider a board member to be both legal council and lobbyist rolled into one, that's a deal.

Uh-huh

Biden gave something and the US got something. That is normal diplomacy.

And Trump gave something and the US got nothing...

But Trump did. THAT is what makes the crime. US didn't gain, Trump does. See the connection?

Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.

But Biden didn't do it with any intention of personally profiting.

How do you know this? You insist your assumption about Trump's intent is correct but refuse to look at Biden's intent.

Well, how would he have?

Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.

If what you say is true, its Hunter that profits, not J Biden.

So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries? Who's being obtuse now?

There is also no evidence that he did personally profit.

I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.

Whats 12x50K, Ethan?

What is the minimum dollar value where it becomes a crime?

This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.

#32

Debates: 0

Posts: 150

11.09.2019 06:17PM

-->

@ethang5

Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.

Why?

Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law

Again, not true. Examples include Humanitarian conditions and pollution issues.

Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.

I wasn't aware either of those circumstances require intelligence. You aren't president, and you aren't a billionaire. Does that mean you aren't smart, Ethan?

The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime?

Because is is with holding money for something that would benefit him, personally. A smear campaign in election season has value. Secondly, if the money is held, there is no reason to think that a second investigation netting the same results as the first would earn them the money.

Of course he did! Biden was a part of the situation,

Tangentially. H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember? It was an investigation into the CEO of the company, and his in-roads with the prosecutor that was investigating him. Its quite possible that Hunter found this affiliation, and warned his father, in so much as he was on the board, that would explain why a prosecutor viewed as soft on corruption was replaced, the investigation never found Hunter to be engaging in anything underhanded.

And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.

Friendly reminder, an investigation later, and we don't have 'an accused' regarding the Bidens.

His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money

Indeed. And, by general consensus, said prosecutor should have been sacked, as he was viewed on the world stage as soft on corruption. Seems odd to sack a guy soft on corruption if your son is corrupt. Seems really odd to want a new prosecutor in, one that is harder on corruption, if your son is corrupt.

The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid.

Dude, he repeated the same line of inquiry with China over the Bidens, and for some reason asked China to look into Elizabeth Warren. His MO is pretty clear if you take the blinders off.

Nonsense. Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?

No, I am familiar with the video. It wasn't 'his son's' company, he was a member of the board. I am still asking you what the crime was, in so much as the prosecutor in question was widely viewed as soft on corruption. This, again, seems counter intuitive. If your son is not named by a corrupt investigator, and your son is indeed corrupt, why would you want a new prosecutor in? This whole "firing the corrupt guy to get a non-corrupt guy for a billion dollars" seems a bit drawn out. Why not just pay the corrupt investigator off, in so much as he was, ya know, corrupt. Let me cut to the chase for you: if you had ill intentions, the Bidens went about it backwards with more risk. If your intentions are pure, that was exactly how to handle the situation.

The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.

The Senate doesn't bring charges, either. The Attorney General does. The president suffers no consequences from being found guilty and removed from office by the Senate. He would need to be formally charged by the AG after his removal, since, (convieeeeeeeeniently.....) the DoJ's policy is not to indict a sitting president.

Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?

Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor whom had not named his son in any malfeasance. So, of course, logically, fire the guy that hasn't named your kid. Makes TOTAL sense, Ethan. Secondly, do you honestly think everyone whom sits on a board of directors at a power company was a line man? You think Chase's CEO was a bank teller? C'mon, man. He was a lawyer and a lobbyist, that was his job with the company. "Hello".

The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand.

With the original investigator sacked.

Negative, the 'old' investigator sat idle on the case for quite a bit of time before he was replaced. So, of course, the investigator that is not finding corruption in the company he is investigating is a prime target for putting in some one else. Brilliant strategy.

Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.

Trump gets a smear job, that is gain. Trump might even get some variety of fabricated evidence, if it means more money would be diverted to Ukraine's way, though that is conspiracy. Anything good for the country would be good for Trump, but not everything good for Trump is good for the country. This is a prime example of such.

Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.

That sounds more like his kid profiting than Joe.

So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries?

Because the Trump-lings are perfect examples of what NOT to do.

I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.

What is 50Kx12, Ethan? Secondly, I think your definition of 'personal' is borked. If my kid gets a birthday card with money it it, I'm not profiting.

What is the minimum dollar value where it becomes a crime?

This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.

I am telling you what he pocketed. 600K. That was Hunter's salary, so we know who it went to. And you mean you want another investigation. The first one didn't name Hunter of wrong doing.

#33

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.10.2019 09:12AM

-->

@FaustianJustice

Trump asked the Ukrainians to investigate.

Why?

So your confidence that Trump shouldn't have conducted the investigated himself is gone? I prove you wrong and you simply ooze to yet another question?

Trump had no authority to ask a foreign country to investigate anything if it did not involve an American or breaking American law

Again, not true. Examples include Humanitarian conditions and pollution issues.

Please tell us the law that gives Trump the authority to ask a foreign country to investigate humanitarian conditions and pollution issues. I can cite you the law requiring Trump to ask about corruption.

Right, he's a billionaire, and the president because he's stupid.

I wasn't aware either of those circumstances require intelligence.

Of course you weren't.

You aren't president, and you aren't a billionaire. Does that mean you aren't smart, Ethan?

That is a logical fallacy I know it would be futile to explain to you.

The "favor" was for an investigation. How is that a crime?

Because is is with holding money for something that would benefit him, personally.

No sir. He withheld the money as prescribed by law. And Joe doesn't get a pass on crime because he's a candidate. You are still trying substitute your assumption for Trump's intent.

A smear campaign in election season has value.

An investigation is not a smear campaign.

Secondly, if the money is held, there is no reason to think that a second investigation netting the same results as the first would earn them the money.

Trump asked for an investigation, not a result.

Biden was a part of the situation,

Tangentially. H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember?

Because his father was VP at the time. One doesn't need to be accused for an investigation to be proper.

It was an investigation into the CEO of the company, and his in-roads with the prosecutor that was investigating him. Its quite possible....

Facts please. Your possibilities, probabilities, assumptions, and suspicions will not be used to Impeach a duly elected president.

...the investigation never found Hunter to be engaging in anything underhanded.

His father was successful in getting the investigator sacked before that could happen.

And that is decided in a court where the accused receives due process.

Friendly reminder, an investigation later, and we don't have 'an accused' regarding the Bidens.

In the world outside of TDS, an accusation is not tantamount to guilt. The situation with J. Biden stinks to high heaven. That's why H.Biden has disavowed it.

His son was on the paroll of the company the Ukrainian investigater his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money.

Indeed. And, by general consensus, said prosecutor should have been sacked, as he was viewed on the world stage as soft on corruption.

That is beside the point that it was an illegal thing to do, as evidenced by the fact that you are accusing Trump of the exact same thing!

Seems odd to sack a guy soft on corruption if your son is corrupt.

It is illegal for a sitting VP to use American money to blackmail a country into sacking a prosecutor. Especially when said prosecutor is investigating the company your son works for.

Seems really odd to want a new prosecutor in, one that is harder on corruption, if your son is corrupt.

Odd or not, what Biden did was illegal.

The fact remains he did not ask to help his election bid.

Dude, he repeated the same line of inquiry with China over the Bidens, and for some reason asked China to look into Elizabeth Warren. His MO is pretty clear if you take the blinders off.

You mean the TDS glasses. You want to convict a person on your biased suspicions. This is the same rubbish the Dems tried with Judge Kavenaugh. In America, people are innocent until proven guilty.

Biden is on video bragging about forcing Ukraine to sack the man investigating his sons company by withholding money. Would you like the link?

No, I am familiar with the video.

Is it a crime?

I am still asking you what the crime was, in so much as the prosecutor in question was widely viewed as soft on corruption.

And I keep answering you but you pretend to be obtuse. The hardness of the prosecutor is immaterial to Biden's action.

It is illegal for a sitting VP to use withholding American money to blackmail a country into sacking a prosecutor. Especially when said prosecutor is investigating the company his son works for.

This, again, seems counter intuitive. If your son is not named by a corrupt investigator,

Not yet...

and your son is indeed corrupt, why would you want a new prosecutor in?

You want the investigation stopped. Before your crooked son is fingered.

This whole "firing the corrupt guy to get a non-corrupt guy for a billion dollars" seems a bit drawn out.

That is the spin you want substituted in. It is illegal for a sitting VP to use withholding American money to blackmail a country into sacking a prosecutor. Especially when said prosecutor is investigating the company his son works for. What's drawn out is the fake job the dems are trying to pull on Trump.

Why not just pay the corrupt investigator off, in so much as he was, ya know, corrupt.

Why do that with the risks that come with it when you can, under the guise of firing a "corrupt" prosecutor, get him out without spending a cent?

Let me cut to the chase for you: if you had ill intentions, the Bidens went about it backwards with more risk.

Untrue. The Bidens did exactly what corrupt politicians do.

If your intentions are pure, that was exactly how to handle the situation.

Then you shouldn't fear an investigation. But we aren't going to take it on faith your claim that the Bidens had pure intentions and Trump had impure intentions.

The Senate was not hand picked by Trump.

The Senate doesn't bring charges, either.

The senate convicts.

The president suffers no consequences from being found guilty and removed from office by the Senate.

Being removed from office is no consequence?

He would need to be formally charged by the AG after his removal, since, (convieeeeeeeeniently.....) the DoJ's policy is not to indict a sitting president.

Right. The AG being appointed by the president is a gross evil. Lol.

Biden withheld funds from Ukraine until that country fired the official investigating the company his son was sucking millions from for a "job" for which he had no experience. Hello?

Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor whom had not named his son in any malfeasance.

Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal. Try to dress it as much as you want, the truth remains.

Look at your sentence above. There is no subject for your verb "have"!

Biden with held funds to have a corrupt prosecutor... what? To have him what? You don't say. Because you know it was illegal. So you smarmily lie.

So, of course, logically, fire the guy that hasn't named your kid. Makes TOTAL sense, Ethan.

More sensible would have been to wait till his son was named?

Secondly, do you honestly think...

If it had been Trump's son, you would be having convulsions. Please man.

The investigation into the company was in place before Biden arrived. The investigation continued for a year or so after J. Biden made his demand.

With the original investigator sacked.

Negative, the 'old' investigator sat idle on the case for quite a bit of time before he was replaced.

Untrue. He was sacked from the case.

So, of course, the investigator that is not finding corruption in the company he is investigating is a prime target for putting in some one else. Brilliant strategy.

Has nothing to do with the illegality of Biden's action.

Trump did not gain. There was no investigation. And anything good for the country would be good for Trump.

Trump gets a smear job, that is gain.

An investigation is not a smear job, though it is interesting you think it is. Biden could have been cleared by an investigation.

Trump might even get....

Facts please. Your possibilities, probabilities, assumptions, and suspicions will not be used to Impeach a duly elected president.

Anything good for the country would be good for Trump, but not everything good for Trump is good for the country. This is a prime example of such.

Only if we stupidly accept your assumption as truth. Why would we do that?

Keeping his shyster son out of jail. 50k a month is sweet.

That sounds more like his kid profiting than Joe.

Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?

So why did Hunter say if his father won he would accept no money from foreign countries?

Because the Trump-lings are perfect examples of what NOT to do.

So you agree it was criminal.

I think the millions his son pocketed qualify as personal profit.

What is 50Kx12, Ethan?

Is it not illegal if the amount is not gigantic?

Secondly, I think your definition of 'personal' is borked. If my kid gets a birthday card with money it it, I'm not profiting.

Your son getting 50k a month while you are a sitting VP forcing that foreign country to sack the prosecutor investigating the very company paying your son, by withholding financial aid to them, is not borked.

This is why we need an investigation, we have no clue what he pocketed, or where that money went.

I am telling you what he pocketed.

And we are telling you Trump pocketed nothing. But your moral compass wants to convict the clean one and ignore the one who profited.

600k. That was Hunter's salary,

So you say. We don't know.

...so we know who it went to.

No we don't. An investigation would follow the money trail.

And you mean you want another investigation. The first one didn't name Hunter of wrong doing.

Because the investigation was stopped by the sitting VP, and father of a possible investigative target, by extorting the government of the foreign country with withholding aid until the investigator was sacked.

...birthday card with money in it

Lol!

#34

Debates: 0

Posts: 150

11.11.2019 09:44PM

-->

@ethang5

Mkee. So, the National Review is a conservative leaning online publication. Here is what their article, specific to Burisma, Hunter, etc outlines as far as a timeline. I did my own corroboration, and minus a few details that you should be able corroborate on your own, this seems to be accurate.

2010-2012 - Burisma's activities are under investigation by the current prosecutor/Attorney General of the Ukraine.

4/2014 - H Biden moves from a position of hired advisor through Seneca to a position on the Board of Burisma holdings. Burisma holdings is currently owned by M. Zlochevsky whom is under investigation.

5/2015 - To corroborate the optics of the position of having a VP's kid some place important, especially one sitting next to some one being investigated for corruption, the NY times writes an editorial piece outlaying how this seems improper, but not illegal.

12/15 -J Biden makes his desire for the current prosecutor, V. Shokin known. Shokin's soft on corruption issue is at this time widely known, criticized in the EU, and Great Brittain has also opened their own investigations into various corruption cases. Shokin has not moved on the corruption case related to Burisma.

5/16 - V. Shokin is removed from his position and is replaced by Y. Sevruk, whom is later replaced Y. Lutsenko. Lutsenko re-opens the Burisma case, which since Shokin's start of tenure -has been idle-. Lutsenko was replaced yet another dude whose name is redogulously difficult to type. All of Shokin's successors have come to the same conclusion regarding Burisma and H Biden, that being he was never under scrutiny or accusation of wrong doing.

Yes, H. Biden's monthly take home was 50K, same source.

Now, why is it NOT a QPQ when Biden makes his demand. At the time, there was nothing against Hunter. Its that simple. Hunter doesn't benefit from a new prosecutor, if anything, that might expose him more. Joe doesn't benefit from a new prosecutor, either. Further re-opens of the case net no further question about the Biden's involvement, at least that the Ukraine and Burisma would be involved in. At the time of the with-holding of funds, general world sentiment was that Shokin was soft on corruption, which again makes it strange that wanting a anticorruption hardliner to be counter-intuitive. I understand your disagreement stems that the new guy was just towing the line, but then strangely, so did the news series of prosecutors even when Biden was not in power anymore.

Why is it QPQ for Trump? There is no evidence to wrong doing on behalf of the Bidens regarding corruption and the Ukraine. Its spurious. Such spurious anecdote followed up by a request into closed investigation, specifically against the Bidens (and not Burisma) as we head into election season are obvious, the President wants dirt. Specifically, as the non-transcript transcript shows, on the Bidens. This would have been a "favor", as the money that was Congressional appointed was held. Trump, by name is calling out political opponents whom have at the time of such a call out not have not been found to have done any wrong doing, and is using public monies to strong arm foreign governments into baseless investigations. If you feel as though this is worthless to Trump, you kid yourself.

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 150

11.11.2019 10:01PM

-->

@ethang5

So your confidence that Trump shouldn't have conducted the investigated himself is gone? I prove you wrong and you simply ooze to yet another question?

Goes to motive, Ethan. I contend Trump does it for personal gain. If the company Hunter was part of was under investigation before Hunter arrived, it would stand to reason Trump should have asked more about Burisma than Hunter and Joe, but... well, you aren't going to answer the question. "Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?

Please tell us the law that gives Trump the authority to ask a foreign country to investigate humanitarian conditions and pollution issues. I can cite you the law requiring Trump to ask about corruption.

Then please do. And please, while you are citing things, cite the law that prevents Trump from asking about humanitarian and pollution issues. I contend he can ask about anything he wants. He cannot use public monies, however, to benefit from something personally, as he has done.

No sir. He withheld the money as prescribed by law....

Then please, demonstrate what laws he feels was being broken in the Ukraine regarding the Bidens. It was already investigated once, then again, surely your opinion on the matter is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

You want the investigation stopped. Before your crooked son is fingered.

Well, it was already idle, so... again, why upset the apple cart? I mean, if it wasn't moving anywhere before Hunter got there, it seems unlikely Hunter's addition would move it forward against Hunter.

An investigation is not a smear campaign.

Baseless ones very much are.

Tangentially. H Biden was never accused of wrong doing, remember?

Because his father was VP at the time. One doesn't need to be accused for an investigation to be proper.

And he wasn't accused of wrong doing when the investigation started, he wasn't there, and he wasn't accused of wrong doing when Joe left office either. There is no 'yet' anymore, Joe isn't in power, and 3 new prosecutors looked into it. Dead horse regarding Hunter, Ethan.

The senate convicts.

... JFC, you keep cutting this crap so its worthless. You started off saying Trump doesn't get a day in court, and looking to various other legal proceedings the accused get in a court of law. The Senate nor the House are courts of law, if he is removed from office, legally, nothing happens. He doesn't go to jail, he is just like any other John Doe whom isn't in office anymore.

Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.

Name the law, bro.

Untrue. He was sacked from the case.

He was sacked from the position, he was sacked because he was ineffectual. Its very much true that the case sat 'idle' under him.

An investigation is not a smear job, though it is interesting you think it is. Biden could have been cleared by an investigation.

First you have to be accused to be cleared. He was never 'cleared' of wrong doing because he was never 'accused' of wrong doing, this being after the case was re-opened and changed hands from various prosecutors.

Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?

Please remind me of what I said about Trump's campaign manager meeting the Russians, and I will let you know what Mueller thought about it.

#36

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,907

11.11.2019 10:21PM

Goes to motive, Ethan. I contend Trump does it for personal gain. If the company Hunter was part of was under investigation before Hunter arrived, it would stand to reason Trump should have asked more about Burisma than Hunter and Joe, but... well, you aren't going to answer the question. "Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?

The problem with this motive is that it can be justified, to some part (whatever part it may be is irrelevant), that it's both in the nation's interest to uncover corruption at the level of the vice-presidency as well as personal gain for Trump.

You would be insincere to assume the nation doesn't benefit from cleaning up the institution of the vice-presidency.

The criminal case John Durham is currently looking into also is partly a personal benefit for Trump.

#37

Debates: 0

Posts: 150

11.12.2019 01:37AM

-->

@Greyparrot

The problem with this motive is that it can be justified, to some part (whatever part it may be is irrelevant), that it's both in the nation's interest to uncover corruption at the level of the vice-presidency as well as personal gain for Trump.

You would be insincere to assume the nation doesn't benefit from cleaning up the institution of the vice-presidency.

The criminal case John Durham is currently looking into also is partly a personal benefit for Trump.

Its in the nations best interest, sure, but that was a dead horse. Such an investigation already transpired, and further, Biden flexing on the prosecutor when the various nations of the EU have the same sentiment regarding his corruption, the 'personal' benefit starts to shrink. It wasn't out of the blue. It wasn't reactionary. It was a well established sentiment of our allies.

I know that at the time asked for an investigation into the Bidens, Joe Biden was not the VP, and that 'the institution of the vice-presidency' was not called into question since Pence never came out of his mouth.

#38

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,907

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3g1xyDBs_s

11.12.2019 01:49AM

Such an investigation already transpired.

Lol.

#39

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875

11.12.2019 03:42PM

Such spurious anecdote followed up by a request into closed investigation,...

The closure of the investigation was suspect, as the VP used aid money to impede it.

...specifically against the Bidens (and not Burisma)

If there were no Bidens, why would the United States be interested? There is corruption worldwide, are we going around asking other countries about it? Of course the US was concerned only about how any corruption related to our officials.

...as we head into election season are obvious, the President wants dirt.

Obvious to you, but not actual. You want to impeach a president for what seems "obvious" to you. You are still saddling intent on Trump you assume and cannot show.

I contend Trump does it for personal gain.

Prove it, don't assume it. So because it

also benefited Trump, he should ignore a clear case of corruption?

"Why call out the Bidens" given the facts of the matter?

Because what Biden did was illegal.

cite the law that prevents Trump from asking about humanitarian and pollution issues.

I did not say any law forbid Trump from asking, but imagine if you were president of a country and Trump came and asked you to explain and justify the humanitarian

Situation in your country. Would you not reply him the way China, Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and Zimbabwe did? With a hearty fck off?

But if the humanitarian issue involved Americans in your prisons, America would not, and should not accept your dismissal.

Statute required the president to ensure there was no corruption going on before American money is handed over. Trump tried to do that. He was correct.

Then please, demonstrate what laws he feels was being broken in the Ukraine regarding the Bidens.

You keep asking, and I keep telling you, and you pretend I didn't.

4th time now. His son was on the payroll of the company the Ukrainian investigator his VP father forced the Ukrainians to sack by threatening to withhold money. And it had been established that the Russians meddled in the 2016 election.

It was already investigated once, then again, surely your opinion on the matter is the straw that breaks the camel's back.

It had never been investigated by America. Ukrainian investigations alone will not fly in an American court.

An investigation is not a smear campaign.

Baseless ones very much are.

Tell that to Pelosi and shifty Shiff. And your attempt to convict Trump on your suspicions is baseless.

And he wasn't accused of wrong doing when the investigation started, he wasn't there, and he wasn't accused of wrong doing when Joe left office either.

Neither was Judge Kavenaugh, hypocrite. Is there a statute of limitation on corruption? He was not accused by the Ukrainians. His VP father made sure of that.

3 new prosecutors looked into it. Dead horse regarding Hunter, Ethan.

No sir. 3 Ukrainian prosecutors looked into it. But they are not officials in our legal system. Trump wanted American prosecutors to look into it. Ukraine is corrupt remember?

Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.

Name the law, bro.

Extortion

Name the law, bro.

QPQ. The inexperienced son of the sitting VP being paid by the company released from investigation. How did Biden benefit? Money paid to his son, underhanded money some other way, no scandal for his 2016 run.

He was sacked from the position, he was sacked because he was ineffectual.

He was sacked because the US VP went there and threatened to withhold American aid until the man investigating his son's company was sacked. Biden himself said so.

Would you like me to remind you what you said about Trump Jr. Meeting the Russians before the 2016 elections?

Please remind me of what I said about Trump's campaign manager meeting the Russians,

You said it was collusion.

...and I will let you know what Mueller thought about it.

He said there was no collusion.

It is shameful that Americans can be this destructive to their own country because of partisanship.

#40

Debates: 0

Posts: 150

11.12.2019 09:48PM

-->

@ethang5

The closure of the investigation was suspect, as the VP used aid money to impede it.

Unless the official was corrupt, which was the complaint from various allies. In which case, its pretty much SOP. Fire corrupt officials.

If there were no Bidens, why would the United States be interested?

A developing resource for world trade in a country being annex by Russia is a pretty good reason. I don't expect you to accept it, but hey. No accounting for taste.

You want to impeach a president for what seems "obvious" to you.

Hold this thought.

Because what Biden did was illegal.

According to what statute. You are saying its breaking a law. Release that thought, now, and tell me the statute, not what Ethan thinks is 'obvious'.

I did not say any law forbid Trump from asking...

Okay, so, no law forbids it, that means he has the authority to ask. Thank you.

You keep asking,

For a statute. What statute did Biden break. Not what crime Ethan thinks Joe obviously committed, what statute did Joe Biden break.

Ukrainian investigations alone will not fly in an American court.

Ah, good, I was wondering when you were gonna dig up your goal posts.

Is there a statute of limitation on corruption?

The investigation into said corruption started against the CEO of Burisma before Biden arrived, so, you tell me if you want to investigate into some one whom literally wasn't involved at the time the case began.

Withholding funds to have a prosecutor removed is illegal.

Find the statute.

Extortion

Is a crime, but you need a specific statute here, otherwise its just Ethangs Fee-fees.

He said there was no collusion.

Incorrect. He specifically stated that collusion is not a crime, and that his investigation was based around the notion of conspiracy (which is a crime). DJT Jr was let out of Muellers net literally because he didn't think what he was doing was a crime, which is part of the statute regarding criminal conspiracy, the conspirators need to know what they do is illegal. You know, that meeting that DJT, Trump's campaign manager took to get dirt on Hillary from what was billed as a "Crown Prosecutor" in Russia? That meeting that first never happened, then happened according to Juniors twitter fingers?

#41

Debates: 4

Posts: 22,907

11.12.2019 10:10PM

He specifically stated that collusion is not a crime.

Collusion isn't a crime though.

Collusion to commit a crime is a crime.

There is a big difference.

If there is a law that makes it a criminal offense to hear something "bad" about another person from a non-American, then the entire government needs to be purged by law.

#42

Debates: 1

Posts: 5,875