while the 2 parties are arguing whether to allow new witnesses or not.... one thing seems to be overlooked, IMHO
The most important witness, IMHO, is Joe Biden. After all, this whole circus started because of the Ukraine government's investigation into corruption, associated with Hunter Biden.
Joe Biden now has prepared a script for the MSM,.. what to say, should this issue come up. The key words: "debunked conspiracy theory."... "no evidence of wrong doing"... "fake news".
Yet, there definitely is evidence....
There are numerous witnesses (and probably videos) showing Joe Biden bragging about how he told the president of the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating his son, or the Urkaine would not get that 1 Bill Dollar check he had in his hand... he gave the president six hours to do so... and it was done.
But then, Joe Biden has already stated, should he be ordered to testify, he would refuse.... of course, when a Democrat obstructs a congressional investigation, there is no problem
You may not like D Trump as a person, you may not like D Trump in the WH.... but the dirty games the Dem Party has been playing since 2016, is an embarrassment for the country.
I know some of the more active posters don't like Schiff. However, I've been watching him today and he's been describing an extremely detailed timeline on why he thinks Trump is guilty as sin. He's done a fantastic job. Regardless, I expect very few Trump supporters to change their mind due to close mindedness and a hatred for the Dems (who, by the way, I don't even like overall).
I hope this will convince enough Senators to have witnesses. Having no witnesses is not a real trial.
This is a quid pro quo, folks! Not good.
This is typical of the evidence/witnesses the dems have presented. Here is their star witness, Sondland being totally debunked. This segment was not widely reported, but we heard it was damning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnEWYilDgcg&feature=youtu.be
I don't care how "sophisticated" Schiff may have been in presenting his assumptions and presumptions. Based on this testimony, and all the rest of the case made, there is no "there" there.
Do not go to hotel California
Especially if Adam is there
In common law, quid pro quo indicates that an item or a service has been traded in return for something of value, usually when the propriety or equity of the transaction is in question. A contract must involve consideration: that is, the exchange of something of value for something else of value. For example, when buying an item of clothing or a gallon of milk, a pre-determined amount of money is exchanged for the product the customer is purchasing; therefore, they have received something but have given up something of equal value in return.
1. Obviously President Trump wanted Biden investigated and this was his main motive because Biden is a Democrat.
2. Biden is/was corrupt. Since when is a president not allowed to investigate corruption if it was committed by the opposite party? Yeah, Biden might be running against him in 2020 and that was the real reason for this but corruption is corruption, whether its from the opposite party or somebody you are running against. That actually is the driving force for almost all the investigations in Washington. Are the Republicans investigating Donald Trump? Of course not, its been the other party........constantly for 3 years and they are doing it to affect the 2020 election. Talk about hipocracy.
When Trump does the same thing.........IMPEACH!
3. A prosecutor charging a person with Quid pro quo would need evidence of both parties getting something in the deal. Not thinking about getting something or wanting to get something but you can't convict somebody of a crime for thinking or wanting to do it. Ukraine did NOT do an investigation that showed the corruption of Hunter/Joe Biden. President Trump released the aid a couple of weeks late but before the deadline..........without getting anything.
No quid pro quo. Clearly no quid pro quo, which is why the dems stopped using that term.
4. I really want there to be an investigation of Joe/Hunter Biden for the blatant nepotism and, based on the facts, very likely corruption. There is zero rational explanation to explain the facts in that case without them including VP Biden using his office as VP to manipulate the Ukraine to benefit his son.
The MSM keeps stating over and over that there is no evidence of any wrong doing by the Bidens. Joe says that he only talked to his son 1 time about that job saying: "I hope you know what you're doing"
The picture below proves Joe to be lying. He and Hunter didn't randomly/chance bump into a Ukraine gas company executive....they just happened to be golfing on the same golf course in the same country. They were there together because of business arrangements between them.
And the guy with the most power there, was VP Joe Biden who was calling the (corrupt) shots.
What's also ironic is this:
"The vice president threatened to withhold $1 billion in critical U.S. aid if Shokin was not fired."
How is that not quid pro quo?...............and the guy DID get fired so Biden really DID get something.
Folks, Schiff just spent an hour going over 10 reasons why Trump wanted Zelensky to do the investigations for PERSONAL GAIN as opposed to doing them for the good of the US overall. His presentation was beyond exemplary. Open minded folks would consider these 10 reasons as evidence that Trump attempted to use a foreign country to help himself politically:
I am not an expert in constitutional law... therefore, my opinion doesn't matter...however, my view is as follows.
Joe Biden is quite possibly the next Dem representative to run for presidency. I, as a voter, most certainly would like to know about the Biden family's doings in the Ukraine, which at this point seem to include nepotism, money laundering, and a strong case of quid pro quo.
Add to this that Joe Biden said, he would refuse to testify, should the impeachment trial demand his testimony (he intents to do an "obstruction')
Before I go to the voting booth, I most certainly would like someone to start a thorough investigation.
Therefore, Trump's efforts were not just for "personal gain".... they would have helped give all voters a better understanding of who they are voting for.
Gunter said; "Therefore, Trump's efforts were not just for "personal gain".... they would have helped give all voters a better understanding of who they are voting for."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Looking at the list of 10 reasons from Schiff, the key one to focus on here is #1:
1. Trump cared only about the announcement of investigations rather than about the actual investigation happening. That's because the announcement, itself, would be enough to put doubt in folks' minds about joe Biden.
So, with only an announcement, voters wouldn't get a better understanding about either Biden's corruptness or the lack thereof.
true, Wayne, that's what the number 1 point states... just like this whole impeachment trial's purpose is to show Trump in a negative light... not to actually get an impeachment
However, I disagree with your last statement."... So, with only an announcement, voters wouldn't get a better understanding about either Biden's corruptness or the lack thereof...."
There are plenty of MSM listeners and readers, who never even heard of the Biden Ukraine dealings,, because the MSM certainly did not make an issue out of it. Someone bringing attention to this issue, should raise some interest.... and with a little bit of research, it is not difficult to find out that Hunter Biden was paid 50k/month for a phony job with Burisma, and further research should show that Joe Biden even bragged about his successful quid pro quo deal in the Ukraine
well.... in the meantime, the MSM is covering up for Biden.."there is no evidence"... it's a "conspiracy theory"...it's "fake news"....noting to see here... move on!
"Trump cared only about the announcement of investigations rather than about the actual investigation happening."
Say's who? Adam "fake parody" Schiff? Adam, who had contact with the whisteblower(planning the scheme) a month before it became public and lied about it but got busted Schiff?
It actually makes no sense that President Trump would not care about the actual investigation. Of course he would.
Everybody that doesn't want Joe Biden protected, like Gunter said has a right to know and to get explanations for things that cant be explained using ethical reasoning.
Why is it ok to investigate Trump for 2+ years for something he didn't to but it takes President Trump to investigate(no, not dig up dirt-this is made up by one side, he wanted a legit investigation) a democrats corruption using tactics that certainly were out of line but corruption is corruption and he was trying to investigate corruption.
There is no law that states you can only investigate corruption committed by people in the same party as you. Was this abuse of power? Well, I guess his tariffs on China were an abuse of power. And his threats of a tariffs on Mexico(that worked and they are helping us a great deal) were an abuse of power. And his changing the tax laws and his withdrawing from the climate accord. Almost every president in history could be accused of abuse of power by the opposing party on things they disagreed with him on.
Was he personally motivated because this was corruption by Biden his opponent? You bet he was but his personal motivation also lined up with the best interests of the American people and our government. Our government should not be giving foreign aid to countries that have corruption. Our people have a right to know about the unethical actions of our VP, who now wants us to trust him and vote for him in 2020.
Schiff says that Trump was risking Ukrainian lives by his actions. This is made up. The aid was delayed a couple of weeks and still made the deadline. No question that he was trying to use it like a carrot on a stick to get the guy to investigate corruption but again, not digging up dirt, not to just make an announcement but to investigate real corruption by a key person that Americans should know about..........as we were paying his salary as VP at the time and he was using his position to get favors and now wants our vote but everybody is only looking at Trump trying to get a favor..........that never happened -no investigation-no announcement-the aid was paid anyway before the deadline- so no quid pro quo but this is the reason to remove him from office.
Biden doing worse somehow makes him good presidential material???
How did our country benefit by having Hunter Biden on the board of the natural gas company making a massive salary for a job he should not have had? Pure Biden family benefits using his position as VP.
Or from the guy that Joe Biden bragged he had fired?
Most people should get to know more about Joe Biden if he's gong to run for president. I used to like him a great deal over a year ago and had hoped that he would run instead of Hillary in 2016, back when I didn't follow politics much and thought he was a nice, honest guy.
Mike,
1. Trump may have been motivated to only want the announcement for fear that any investigation into Joe Biden might find nothing wrong.
2. Regarding Schiff, did you see this hour today? He backed up all 10 points very meticulously with numerous video clips of Trump admin folks as well as Trump. himself. This wasn't just Schiff spouting out 10 items with no evidence to back them up. If you get time and haven't seen it yet. I recommend you watch it and you'll see why he said Trump only wanted the announcement as well as the backup for the other 9 items.
3. Per Schiff item 10, Trump didn't care about general corruption in Ukraine. He only cared about an announcement about Biden to help his 2020 chances. Watch the video if you can.
Thanks much Larry. I'll try to catch that stuff.
"Trump may have been motivated to only want the announcement for fear that any investigation into Joe Biden might find nothing wrong."
Who's opinion is that..........and it's obviously just an opinion of somebody(s) assigning the false narrative that "Trump was just trying to dig up dirt on Biden when there is no evidence that Biden did anything wrong"
I think there is a MUCH greater chance that Biden DID do something wrong,. At the very least we already know he abused his power as VP to get personal favors in the Ukraine (where Joe was the top guy/contact from the US with them) for his son..........which is ethically wrong. Trump knows this, so why would he think an investigation would find nothing wrong when no investigation already shows something wrong?
I added this at the end of the last post later but decided to make it separate to make it clear on my opinions on/of Joe Biden came with great disappointment at first because I liked him so much.
I think there is a 30% chance that I could have voted for him in 2016.
Actually, I did in 2008, when I voted for Obama and for sure would have voted for him as president in 2008 because I thought war monger McCain was very bad news.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Funny thing is that I started following politics exactly the day I took over as moderator almost 2 years ago because of the intense political battles here and penchant for both sides to say false things.........which I would research to provide the facts to clear things up.
I seriously liked Joe Biden alot my entire life until a year ago and felt really bad the first time I had to post bad facts about him here in 2019.
you wrote"...Per Schiff item 10, Trump didn't care about general corruption in Ukraine. He only cared about an announcement about Biden to help his 2020 chances..."
and the Democrats know that the Senate will not vote him guilty. This whole "impeachment" is done only to reduce Trump's changes of winning in 2020
... dirty politics, all around
With regards to Hunter BIden, this guy is obviously a low life and I almost never call anybody names but he earned it.
He gets a woman pregnant(everybody makes mistakes) then lies about ever having sex with the woman......until he got busted by DNA, then refuses to take any responsibility in the childs life, including not paying a dime in child support and trying to block the court from getting information about him(that he should be providing) about his income.
Take responsibility for your actions dude. There is a baby that you fathered. Bad enough that you don't want to see your child or have a relationship with him but you won't even abide by your legal responsibility to help support the child.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/22/hunter-biden-ordered-to-arkansas-court-for-paternity-case.html
More on that here:
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/44944/
Somebody with this selfish/irresponsible frame of mind and the unethical actions that we know about without investigations certainly ought to be investigated when the evidence that we know of, clearly shows that there was an impossible to explain situation using just ethical or usual standards of practice explanations.
Larry,
Do you have a link to the stuff that you wanted me to see from Adam Schiff? I couldn't find it.
I didn't know who he was until this impeachment stuff got going.
When I heard his made up parody, pretending/faking to be reading from the phone call transcript into the record to mislead the American people, I was shocked that a person conducting one of the most important hearings would blatantly/arrogantly do such a thing in front of everybody, thinking they would not be held accounable(for Pete's sake, we are talking about removing a president from office). Then after finding out that he had been in contact with the whistle blower a month earlier(for what could only be scheming on how to they would go about using this to impeach Trump) and had been lying about it...........his credibility went bye bye for me.
Then he told CNN that if Trump was a democrat, he would be doing the exact same thing, I found that impossible to believe or that he would actually think people are gullible enough to believe such a thing in an an extraordinarily partisan environment(that he is NOT partisan).
At least Midnight Mitch openly admits that he IS partisan, which is the case for almost everybody( even while they pretend otherwise), but not everybody there. A few really are looking at just the facts.
So as always, I will try to look at Schiff's facts and not the disengenous, lying, partisan messanger.
"....
OMG !!!!
thanks for the link
BTW, its been clear from the get go that President Trump is lying about his main reason for the investigation. If it had been VP Cheney or president Bush or a republican, no way would that phone call or actions have taken place...........but so what?
If this were president Hillary Clinton and she made the same phone call to investigate a republic VP there is a 0% chance that Schiff and the democrats would be calling for impeachment and Schiff is lying as much as Trump is about the partisan nature of their actions.
You would have to be blind to not see that every vote for impeachment came from th opposite party..........because it was the opposite party. And the charges, ironically are that Trump was being partisan(just like them) and abusing his power to try to investigate an opponent of the opposite party to make it harder for them to get elected in 2020.
That is exactly, what is motivating the democrats here. They are doing exactly what they are accusing president Trump of doing and they are all lying and pretending that politics has nothing to do with it.
They already tried to impeach Trump in 2017 on some really silly stuff. That tipped their hand that their top priority was not high crimes but impeachment........and not waiting for an impeachable offense.
The measure drew the support of 58 House Democrats.
12/06/2017 02:15 PM EST
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888
This was certainly worth a reprimand and was actually an abuse of power............but not nearly as great of an abuse of power as to what they are doing, which is wielding the absolute maximum power that they have as members of Congress to overturn the results of an election and try to keep that person from being elected again.
Who was harmed by President Trump trying to investigate real corruption of somebody that is his opponent?
Who is being harmed by the democrats trying to destroy President Trump for taking an investigation into his political opponent into his own hands.
I can see how Trumps actions are corrupt because he is lying about the real reason that he was doing it but since I see Bidens actions as being corrupt, he was still doing a good thing because Biden has been getting a free pass for his corruption and needs to be held accountable..........and has not been.
If Joe Biden was in fact, innocent and we don't have all the unexplained facts that tell us blatant nepotism and other abuses of power and quid pro quo by Joe Biden then, I would be for impeachment.
OK, I found a good link and will try to look it over more, later this morning:
From the bullet points above…
Number 1 is a flat out lie. In the initial call and on several other occasions, Trump asked for an investigation. To say he only wanted an announcement is at best, selectively presenting observations.
#2.)No idea what that means.
#3) That Trump used his personal attorney means what?Can you cite the statute that this violates?
#4) investigation never part of official US policy and #5, outside of official channels. You mean like the Steele Dossier?We actually have a treaty with Ukraine prohibits us from launching an investigation without working closely/involving their agencies directly, and this investigation never really got off the ground. Schiff, et.al saw to that. Do ya wonder what might have happened had he used "official channels"?
#6) Multiple admin officials reported concerns. And multiple officials said it was fine. And Sondland presumed and assumed it was quid pro quo.(Please watch Turners cross one more time in the above link)
7.) Ukraine expressed concern it was political? Their president said he felt no pressure/threat, no political pressure.Does his opinion count?Not to Schiff.
8.)The White House attempted to Bury the Call. Another flat out lie. They had it on a secure server, as had become policy due to multiple leaks, but were completely forth coming with the details when requested.
9.) President told us in his own statements.So did Biden.When does that investigation start?
10.) President did not care. This one requires mind reading.Was Trump politically motivated? I’ll bet he was. But so is this entire impeachment as they’ve been planning to impeach the “MFer” since election night. But do you really want to believe that Biden and his son are above suspicion on this?
In closing, Schiff did a great job, if you really really want to believe he did. But if you believe in judging based on facts and law, he really really didn’t.
I had some time to think about those 10 points, came back and found that Tim's points mirror my thoughts very closely.
I'm baffled at many of those points which, don't make sense based on critical thinking or based on the actual facts.
I'll point out the one, that yesterday I first heard and asked who would be saying something like that which doesn't make any sense to me and try to make sense why this false narrative was created.
Tim's response:
"From the bullet points above…
Number 1 is a flat out lie. In the initial call and on several other occasions, Trump asked for an investigation. To say he only wanted an announcement is at best, selectively presenting observations."
Since it's pretty obvious to anybody who knows the circumstances and is not just believing the bs "no evidence of wrong doing by the Bidens" story line......that an investigation is not going to result in an ethical explanation for why Joe Biden acted to abuse his power as VP, of course President Trump would want a legit investigation because the odds are so one sided in it making Biden look bad vs almost impossible for it to make him look good. What possible scenario would an investigation into this, make Biden look good that Trump is worried about? I can't envision one. Neither would Trump.
So why would one side state this? The only thing that makes sense is because it paints a false narrative that President Trump was only trying to dig up dirt on Biden and didn't really want an investigation into corruption. But of course he wanted an investigation. . One side stating the opposite shows how dishonest they are. If I only knew this one fact and that this is the top, #1 item on their list for reasons to impeach a president, I can tell you that this is a charade.
Again, I am being honest. President Trump WAS politically motivated by his actions and he did use an abuse of power in many ways to try to get Biden''s REAL corruption investigated.
But the dems are just making stuff up so that it appears his actions did not have any value for our country/government or people.
Of course they had value. There was corruption. It does deserve to be investigated, even if its by a person of the opposite party and even if the president used his influence to try to make it happen. We all deserve an explanation for Joe Bidens decisions and abuse of power for personal gain. His likely quid pro quo. He got something which makes it legally quid pro quo. Trump did not get anything so it can't be that by definition.
Regarding Trumps current abuse of power, I can give you 100 other examples of presidents in history of taking actions that the other party considered an abuse of power. Most were not targeting political opponents but Biden's abuse of power as VP and his corrupt influence in and with the Ukraine are very legit investigation issues for a president who represents the American people/government and their interests...............regardless of if it was serving his personal interests.
The only way to "pretend" that wasn't the case is to state (falsely) that he really didn't want an investigation.
People that state false things, like fake parodies of the transcript to mischaracterise the phone conversation and that they had no contact with the whistle blower(when they did over a month earlier-to obviously plan this scheme out-unless somebody can suggest the real reason and why he lied) and now that the president, absurdly never really wanted the investigation that he asked for in the phone call and base on facts are just not credible.
Again, I believe most of the testimony from people that stated Trump wanted an investigation by the Ukraine into Biden...........for personal reasons.
However............and this is the most important point......if "some" of the facts presented in impeaching Trump are embellished, falsely stated or made up,.......and I just gave you examples of this with 100% certainty, then the complete truth, by itself must not be enough to impeach him.
Of course Trump is lying about his motivation to investigate Biden but that still doesn't mean that we should believe the MANY lies that the other side is telling/making up to impeach him.
If this were a court case and the prosecutor was busted making up evidence and telling lies all over the place.........it would get thrown out...........especially if the charges and penalties were far in excess for the crime.
The democrats are basically asking for the most severe penalty known in the world of somebody holding a political office, to be imposed only for the worst of crimes and only happened a couple of times before in history.
This doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria.........which is why they have to keep making stuff up. This is very unethical, partisan and against the best interest of the Constitution and the American people(that they absurdly claim to represent as they try to do to Trump what they claim he was trying to do to Biden-which Trump was doing but they are even worse because Trump did not make up lies about Biden as they are about Trump). It's flaring up the political divisiveness to a max.
I am not a republican and still think with the mind of the party I affiliated strongly with for more than the first half of my life..........that has completely lost touch with all those things I cherish and used to support them for. Jimmy Carter is still my favorite president because he was and still is a quintessential example of that.
They are embarrassing our country and governmental system in front of the world.
Again, so is Trump in the way that he acts...........all the time. If they want to impeach him for his character flaws, then they would have a thousand examples of legit instances to use without needing to lie...........but they aren't because thats not impeachable.
Agreed. Trump's true offenses, his many character flaws, leading to behavior that is often beneath the dignity of the office, are material in the voting booth. Up to the voters.
The dems are concerned that voters just aren't quite offended enough to choose one of their (IMO) terrible candidates.
If you overlook his flaws and focus on results... Trump is a clear choice for many, perhaps the majority, and the dems assault on the democratic process continues at their own peril.
Mike said this:
"Since it's pretty obvious to anybody who knows the circumstances and is not just believing the bs "no evidence of wrong doing by the Bidens" story line......that an investigation is not going to result in an ethical explanation for why Joe Biden acted to abuse his power as VP, of course President Trump would want a legit investigation because the odds are so one sided in it making Biden look bad vs almost impossible for it to make him look good. What possible scenario would an investigation into this, make Biden look good that Trump is worried about? I can't envision one. Neither would Trump.
So why would one side state this? The only thing that makes sense is because it paints a false narrative that President Trump was only trying to dig up dirt on Biden and didn't really want an investigation into corruption. But of course he wanted an investigation. . One side stating the opposite shows how dishonest they are. If I only knew this one fact and that this is the top, #1 item on their list for reasons to impeach a president, I can tell you that this is a charade."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike,
1. If Trump really wanted a legit criminal invest. into Biden, he should have insisted Barr investigate. But Barr didn't and I suspect the reason is because he worried there was no "there there". See my #2 point below. Also, keep in mind that Barr didn't want this investigation to even be done.
2. Biden wanted the corrupt Ukraine prosecutor out because he was NOT investigating Burisma enough. So, based on that, Biden was not wrong at all for wanting that person out. Trump may realize that and therefore may have been the reason he didn't want a true investigation.
Great points Larry!
Mike,
1. If Trump really wanted a legit criminal invest. into Biden, he should have insisted Barr investigate. But Barr didn't and I suspect the reason is because he worried there was no "there there". See my #2 point below. Also, keep in mind that Barr didn't want this investigation to even be done.
I would be surprised if Trump had not already had some sort of conversation with Barr about doing an investigation here............which he could not and should not ever do under these circumstances. Even if there was a 95% chance of him finding something unethical, every clear thinking person would know that he only did the investigation because President Trump wanted him to because VP Biden was the one involved in the potential corruption. If not for the Trump/Biden political factor, what would be the justification for Barr to suddenly come up with the idea to go back years to investigate THIS corruption? Nobody would see Barr as objective, even if he found Biden was abusing his power as VP because it clearly involved a democrat and it would obliterate his credibility. There is not a possible scenario/outcome for an investigation by Barr to be winning position for him. He absolutely would have to refuse to have anything to do with it.
2. Biden wanted the corrupt Ukraine prosecutor out because he was NOT investigating Burisma enough. So, based on that, Biden was not wrong at all for wanting that person out. Trump may realize that and therefore may have been the reason he didn't want a true investigation.
I can't know enough about that situation to even have an informed opinion but will guess that Joe Biden had justification for bragging about how he used his power as VP to get the guy fired.
I note that you completely avoided the mention of Hunter Biden in your response, who is the entire reason for everything. Take Hunter out and there is nothing. Put Hunter in and you have the VP of the United States abusing his power as the top guy from our country(point man) dealing with the Ukraine, knowing its corruption and that being used for his son to get a high paying job he is not qualified for by any standards(corrupt entities have low to no standards and allow politicians to do such things).
Instead of fighting corruption in the Ukraine, Joe and Hunter Biden used it for personal gain because of his political power/position. This is unethical. Burisma, the company Biden worked for was considered the most corrupt company in this corrupt country at the time.
It's not just run of the mill nepotism. The dynamics here make it profoundly bad.
There are tons of people that get jobs every day that they are not qualified for because a family member or friend "pulled some strings". This was the 2nd most powerful person in US politics blatantly abusing his power, and only because of that power and his political connections as the top guy from the US entrusted in representing US policy there, taking advantage of their corruption instead of fighting it.
In no other universe would Hunter even be remotely considered for a high paying position that he had no qualifications for.
This is a different dynamic than Dad, who might be Vice President of Bristol Myers, an honestly run company, using his influence to get his son Billy, who just graduated from college a nice entry level position of a high paying job ahead of some others that might be more qualified.
Hunter had no qualifications and he was made a board member of a big (corrupt) natural gas company, making a huge salary, when there is a 0% chance that any legit company like this would ever hire such a person based on anything other than the unethical process that Joe Biden intentionally used for his son because he was VP. This is corruption.
To me, this is far worse than President Trump's corruption to investigate Bidens corruption.
At least with Trump, there was an additional benefit to Americans and this country in the form of us learning about the real corruption of Biden.
With Biden, the benefits were counterproductive entirely to everybody in the US and Ukraine but the Biden family and the corrupt firm that hired Hunter..........in fact, the Bidens participated in the corruption vs fighting the corruption.
We can disagree over many things but not that corruption is what got Hunter Biden the position he was not qualified for. Was there more than this? Probably, especially since we know that Joe lied about not talking to his son about this position.
You don't have to lie about stuff when the truth justifies your actions. But of course Joe could not tell us the truth because it would reveal how he manipulated people in the Ukraine for his self serving interest and/or how his son got this job based on corruption.
Hey, isn't that why we are impeaching President Trump?
Danged if its not ok for one party to do it then turn around and tell us a person from the other party that does it(to investigate the corruption of their party's guy which is legit) should be removed from office for it.
At least Joe and Hunter actually got something from their corruption in the Ukraine. Regardless of all the hoopla, Trump never got anything from the Ukraine for his corruption. .......which is why it can't be a quid pro quo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepotism
Nepotism is the granting of jobs to one's relatives or friends in various fields, including business, politics, entertainment, sports, religion and other activities. Nepotism is the act of using one's power to secure better jobs or unfair advantages for a family member when they may not have the right skill, experience or motivation compared to others. Instances of business executives expediently hiring their children to their firms, is a modern-day example of nepotism in practise.
Nepotism refers to partiality to family whereas cronyism refers to partiality to a partner or friend.
So I'm not defending the intent of Trumps actions, which was corruption. But you can't have one set of rules for your guy that allow him to do things with impunity that are impeachable offenses if they are done by a guy from the other party. And you absolutely cannot make stuff up and lie about evidence and circumstances related to the impeachment if you are the prosecutor even if the guy you are trying to impeach is lying about things.
In a court of law, somebody accused of a crime can lie about some things and still deserve to get off, especially if the charges are way too excessive for the crime.
The prosecutor must always be held to a much higher standard. When they lie and make stuff up to get a conviction..........its CORRUPTION and violating the Constitutional rights of the accused. The prosecutor would have charges brought against them for lying and making things up that likely would get them disbarred!
Can you say.......Adam Schiff.
Please read the compelling evidence below.
https://nypost.com/2020/01/24/trumps-legal-team-says-it-will-target-biden-family-in-impeach-defense/
We know everything that there is to know about Donald Trump and Russia thanks to that 2.5 year, 30 million dollar investigation that found he was not guilty of any crimes and was started unethically by sources trying to get Trump.
We know almost nothing about the Bidens and Ukraine. Why is there such resistance about doing an investigation...........even a small investigation. How about spending a fraction of the resources that we spent to scrutunize Trump with impunity to look at Bidens very suspicious activities in the Ukraine?
No evidence of wrong doing we hear from the MSM and democrats.
Not from the vantage point that I just described earlier.
If we had done a legit investigation, then we wouldn't be here right now. Biden's name either would have been cleared and Trump would have had no need to do an investigation and we could all stop speculating that there was more to it(and there is some hard to imagine justification for Hunter being there). Or, they would have found something and Trump would have not needed to do an investigation in that case too.
If Biden did nothing wrong........let the investigation show it.
Funny thing is that there really ought to be an investigation. Seriously. The side that supports Biden of course will NEVER do that.
But anybody that does an investigation of Biden, by definition in this partisan world will be seen as targeting him for politics, especially Bill Barr. Barr should absolutely NOT do an investigation of the Bidens in the Ukraine. It would be the worst decision(based on the appearance) of his career, no matter what was found. He would be crucified by the MSM and dems.
So who do we get to do an investigation? Somebody knows who hired Hunter Biden and why and other information. Maybe not so easy to get folks to talk, especially those with the knowledge having played a role and possibly incriminating themselves.
I know, how about President Trump and the Ukraine getting together to do the needed investigation, since the above parties have taken themselves out of it.
Oh, wait this is an impeachable offense
I followed the hearings a bit today and caught Adam Schiff misrepresenting another situation to justify something very unethical, dishonest and completely unjustifiable that he did to kick off the hearings in the house(and has been hounding him and his credibility since then):
"I discovered something very significant by mocking the president and that is for a man who loves to mock others, he does not like to be mocked. As it turns out, he's got a pretty thin skin. Who would have thought it?” Schiff said. “Never mind that I said I wasn't using his words before I said, and I wasn't using his words after I said it, and I said I was making a parody of his words — 'It's an outrage! He mocked the president, that Schiff! Terrible!'"
metmike: Schiff NEVER said he was mocking or making a parody before he did this to let people know he was making it up. It was only after he was called out vehemently by others for misrepresenting what Trump stated, that he stated it was meant to be a parody.
After all this time, for him to be revisiting this unethical, horrible tactical blunder that got him off on the wrong foot for people like me, who had no idea who he was or if he was honest or not until we heard this..........and today, try to make it appear that it was just President Trump's' being thin skinned, not his lying and making things up in the phone conversation to make Trump look corrupt that was the problem.........wow.
https://www.factcheck.org/2019/10/schiffs-parody-and-trumps-response/
metmike: According to Adam Schiff, all the stuff he made up above was ok and it was President Trump just being thin skinned to object to him saying those things. Hey, no big deal right? After all, he was just providing the opening statements as the leader of the hearings to make his case to remove the President of the United States from office. Nobody would ever take something like that serious.......................wrong!
Trumps defense, should print out the above information and show it to everybody, then ask if anybody should believe anything that Adam Schiff has to say.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/40073/
"The very next day, Schiff appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” where he seemingly graduated from dodging to lying, the Post says.
“We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower,” Schiff said on MSNBC.
Kessler noted that this is “flat-out false” given information that has since become available."
“Unlike the quick two-step dance he performed with Anderson Cooper, Schiff simply says the committee had not spoken to the whistleblower. Now we know that’s not true,” the Post’s fact-checker wrote."
On Sept. 19, Schiff was at it again, according to the Post, when speaking with reporters at the Capitol.
“In the absence of the actions, and I want to thank the inspector general, in the absence of his actions in coming to our committee, we might not have even known there was a whistleblower complaint alleging an urgent concern,” Schiff said.
The Post’s fact-checker called this “misleading” comment “more dissembling” and noted that “his committee knew that something explosive was going to be filed with the IG.”
Kessler wrote there “are right ways and wrong ways to answer reporters’ questions if a politician wants to maintain his or her credibility” and there is “nothing wrong with dodging a question, as long as you don’t try to mislead.”
But Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false” on MSNBC and “compounded his falsehood” when speaking with reporters at the Capitol, Kessler wrote.
“The explanation that Schiff was not sure it was the same whistleblower especially strains credulity,” Kessler wrote. “Schiff earns Four Pinocchios.”
The Post’s Fact Checker team considered Four Pinocchios to be “whoppers” and most egregious offense outside of the rare “Bottomless Pinocchio.”
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/10/04/sam_stein_adam_schiff_expressed_regret_for_lying_about_having_no_prior_contact_with_whistleblower.html
"We talked for a couple of minutes last night and he expressed regret for not having been more clear in his wording," Stein said Wednesday. "He said at the time, obviously, we now know the whistleblower had approached his staff, but there wasn't 100% certainty if the whistleblower that had approached his staff was the same one who was behind the complaint. There was a suspicion it was, but it wasn't 100% certainty."
Are you kidding me? Only a naive nimrod would believe this!
Ooops, sorry Nancy (-:
Pelosi defends Schiff after being pressed about his 'parody' of Trump's Ukraine call: 'He did not make it up'
https://www.foxnews.com/media/trump-impeachment-nancy-pelosi-schiff
After Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., was criticized for reading a "parody" of President Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended his actions Thursday and claimed he did not embellish any of the facts.
Schiff, who read the dramatization of Trump's call during acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire's hearing, improvised parts of the transcript for effect, and later tried to frame it as satire.
"I want the American people to know what that phone call was about. I want them to hear, it. So yeah [the parody's] fair," Pelosi told "Good Morning America" on Thursday. "It’s sad, but it's using the president’s own words."
"Those weren't the president's words, it was an interpretation of the president's words. They're saying he made this up," ABC News' George Stephanopoulos countered.
"He did not make it up," she replied.
"Look, I want to tell you something -- when I took the oath of office to support and defend the Constitution as my colleagues have done as well, I did not say, I will do this as long as the Republicans can understand the Constitution.
"So the fact that their loyalty is to Trump and not the Constitution is not going to slow down or impair our ability to keep the Republic."
Now Pelosi is lying and we have it all recorded.
weather x you made good points if you did as Schiff did...end the tape exactly right before most every fact witness used the words assume, presume, or I was guessing....thanks for nothing. Now do you want to talk about the whistle blower? what a sad joke this entire thing is
What Adam Schiff has done with his blatant lying......that has been verified would, in the rest of the world outside of Congress, result in a violation of criminal justice standards and make him potentially subject to penalties and even being disbarred.
Lies, Deceit and the Ethical Rules, Can Prosecutors Lie for the Public Good?
https://www.in.gov/ipac/files/5._Lies_Deceit_Indiana_and_the_Ethical_Rules.pdf
https://www.econlib.org/a-modest-proposal-for-prosecutors-who-lie/
"The proposal is this: Any prosecutor who does this should be charged with a crime and the penalty should be equal to the penalty that the judge has imposed on the defendant. The one exception is when the judge has imposed capital punishment. In that case, the penalty for the prosecutor should be life in prison without the possibility of parole.
This should be so even if it can be shown that the defendant was guilty."
I was realizing for the first time today, that if not for the democrats and the impeachment hearings, me and most people probably would not know anything about Joe and Hunter Biden and their relationship with Burisma in the Ukraine.
There was no investigation by the Ukraine and no announcement of an investigation by the Ukraine, so President Trump was unsuccessful in accomplishing this objective..........but the democrats did it for President Trump ironically.
This is almost as good as announcing an investigation because when people hear the facts, unless they are going to believe that Biden is innocent DESPITE the facts, they have to be thinking there is likely some corruption by the Bidens.
The democrats must know this but have decided to throw Joe Biden under the bus to get President Trump. Most of them really have to know how bad the Bidens look and so does the MSM even though they keep saying "there is no evidence of any wrong doing".
More discussions here on this:
Impeachment Witnesses
Started by wglassfo - Jan. 26, 2020, 10:32 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/46448/
bolton testimony
5 responses |
Started by mcfarm - Jan. 29, 2020, 4:06 p.m.
Schiff is totally busted on his scheme, plotting things out with the whistle blower even before the complaint was filed(and lying about it a month later until he got busted then).
| January 30, 2020 05:59 PM
The Washington Examiner has established that the whistleblower is a CIA officer who was on the NSC during the Obama administration and worked on Ukrainian issues with Joe Biden, the 2020 Democratic candidate, when he was vice president.
Republicans and conservative media figures believe CIA analyst Eric Ciaramella is the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings, and the Washington Examiner was told by a former senior White House official that both had a close, “bro-like” relationship while working at the NSC together. According to a RealClearInvestigations report, which Johnson cited, Misko once told Ciaramella, "'We need to do everything we can to take out the president.’"
"Schiff has faced accusations of a "cover-up" because the whistleblower met with a member of his staff before filing the complaint and because he walked back a claim in an interview last year in which he said, "We have not spoken directly to the whistleblower."
On Thursday, Schiff denied knowing the identity of the whistleblower but declared the whistleblower "should be every one of us."
metmike: WOW! Even after all this, where every person in Congress (and media) know the name of the whistle blower, Eric Ciaramella, the guy that met with Schiff BEFORE filing the report, Adam Schiff is such a patholical liar that he is still stating he doesn't know who the whistle blower is.
This guy is the most corrupt, lying politician that I have known about during my life times.
January 30, 2020 By Kylee Zempel
Paul then took to Twitter, disclosing his question. “My exact question was: Are you aware that House intelligence committee staffer Shawn Misko had a close relationship with Eric Ciaramella while at the National Security Council together,” Paul stated, “and are you aware and how do you respond to reports that Ciaramella and Misko may have worked together to plot impeaching the President before there were formal house impeachment proceedings.”
"This is a complex web, one that’s hard to see as a whole without inserting Eric Ciaramella into the center of it. But his identity and connections to the whole sordid affair are being blocked at every turn. If President Trump’s defense would be allowed to face him and expose his long history of trying to take down the President that goes back to before the 2016 election, it would shift public sentiment and send the House Managers’ case crumbling to the ground.
Democrats have been crying “cover up” since the Senate trial began. The only true cover up is being done by Adam Schiff, John Roberts, and mainstream media. They all know if Eric Ciaramella is unveiled for this impeachment, the whole thing unravels."
https://www.realclearinvestigations.com/articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html
“They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda,” the former official added. “They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”
Misko left the White House last summer to join House impeachment manager Adam Schiff’s committee, where sources say he offered “guidance” to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws. Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional Democrats.
The probe culminated in Trump’s impeachment last month on a party-line vote in the House of Representatives. Schiff and other House Democrats last week delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate, and are now pressing the case for his removal during the trial, which began Tuesday.
The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of what Trump's Democratic antagonists call the “patriotism" of an “apolitical civil servant."
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/01/02/getting_the_goods_on_schiff_142062.html
What is already known is that on July 26, one day after Trump's call with the Ukrainian president, Schiff hired Sean Misko to join his staff. Shortly after that hire, Schiff's staff met with Ciaramella, who is a friend and co-worker of Misko's in the intelligence community. Schiff's staff gave Ciaramella "guidance" on how to make a complaint. A cozy arrangement. The emails will likely divulge more.
Schiff concealed these dealings until The New York Times caught him in the lie. Schiff also withheld documents about aiding the whistleblower to House investigators.
The whistleblower filed his complaint with the Inspector General Michael Atkinson on Aug. 12, also concealing that he had met with Schiff's staff. When the complaint became public in September, Schiff feigned surprise.
Even worse, Schiff obscured how the whistleblower complaint ever saw the light of day. The big question is why Atkinson deemed the complaint "credible" enough to be reported to Congress -- the trigger required for Schiff to launch an impeachment investigation.