U.S. House to launch Trump impeachment inquiry over Ukraine controversy

[Chomper Higgot]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, here is the text of Volker's statement:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/428765582/Full-Statement-from-U-S-Ukraine-Envoy-Ambassador-Kurt-Volker-on-October-3-2019

 

 

That’s his opening statement made before being questioned and cross examined.

 

It is not his testimony.

 

However he does express an opinion on Biden at the bottom of page 4:

 

”In addition, I have known former Vice President Biden for 24 years, and the suggestion that he would be influenced in his duties as Vice President by money for his son simply has no credibility to me. I know him as a man of integrity and dedication to our country.”

 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Chomper Higgot

[Opl]

14 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

That’s his opening statement made before being questioned and cross examined.

 

It is not his testimony.

"Encrypted text messages released by House Democrats late Thursday night reveal that a plan to get Ukraine’s newly elected president to investigate President Donald Trump’s political rivals was hatched with the active involvement of U.S. diplomats, who worked for months to try to carry out the president's demands. "

Decoding the explosive Ukraine text messages

Taylor

1:45 AM July 21
Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk's point that President Zelenskyy is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Opl

[thaibeachlovers]

On 10/5/2019 at 10:33 PM, Becker said:

Link: 2nd Whistleblower May Come Forward On Trump's Ukraine Call

 

"A second intelligence official with even more direct information on President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine into meddling in the presidential election may come forward to Congress, The New York Times reported Friday night."

 

 

Significant word is "MAY". We've heard all this before for the past two years, and all come to naught.

[bristolboy]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Significant word is "MAY". We've heard all this before for the past two years, and all come to naught.

No so. As the Mueller report noted, Trump was not absolved of having committed obstruction of justice

Edited October 7, 2019 by bristolboy

[rabas]

4 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

BTW, here is the text of Volker's statement:

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/428765582/Full-Statement-from-U-S-Ukraine-Envoy-Ambassador-Kurt-Volker-on-October-3-2019

Crystal clear. We need more people like him.

[rabas]

15 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

No so. As the Mueller report noted, Trump was not absolved of having committed obstruction of justice

And again as Mueller clearly said in his testimony, the Department of Justice had never "not exonerated" anyone for anything. They can't. Perhaps obstruction of trumped up charges is different.

 

[Becker]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Significant word is "MAY". We've heard all this before for the past two years, and all come to naught.

No, you're wrong:

 

Link: Lawyer for Ukraine whistleblower says he represents second whistleblower on Trump's actions

 

"The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower who came forward with accusations concerning President Donald Trump and his interactions with Ukraine said Sunday he is representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions.

Attorney Mark Zaid confirmed to CNN that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who the lawyer said works in the intelligence community, has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general."

Edited October 7, 2019 by Becker

[metisdead]

Some troll posts have been removed.  

 

A post linking to an unapproved source has been removed. 

[GroveHillWanderer]

12 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

Who investigated Biden and absolved him as is being claimed by the democrat controlled media?

Let's see links that spell out the seriousness, extent and depth of the investigation? And the evidence that exonerates Biden. Apart from Biden & Jr saying we didn't do it...thats not an exoneration. LOL

The person who should have been investigating if there was any wrongdoing by the Bidens in the Ukraine - Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, that's who.

 

According to Bloomberg News, who interviewed him:

 

Quote

Ukraine’s prosecutor general said in an interview that he had no evidence of wrongdoing by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden or his son, despite a swirl of allegations by President Donald Trump’s lawyer.

 

12 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

If it's a high crime and misdemeanour for Trump to ask Ukraine to investigate corruption and get to the bottom of a crooked deal in which Biden peddled favours for aid, who is it ok for to ask for this investigation? Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer? Hahahahahahaha.

If there were any evidence that Biden "peddled favours for aid" (which as mentioned above, there isn't) then the way to get an investigation into it started, would be to present something providing reasonable grounds for suspicion (difficult because once again, there is no such evidence) to the relevant US authorities, who I believe would be the FBI and/or DoJ.

 

If those authorities felt there was something worth looking at they would then start an investigation. They might even, as part of their investigation, work with the State Department to contact the relevant legal authorities in the country where a US citizen was suspected of a criminal offence.

 

However what is not allowed (because it's a criminal offence in and of itself) is for a person involved in a federal election to directly ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

Edited October 7, 2019 by GroveHillWanderer

[Kelsall]

1 hour ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

The person who should have been investigating if there was any wrongdoing by the Bidens in the Ukraine - Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko, that's who.

 

According to Bloomberg News, who interviewed him:

 

 

If there were any evidence that Biden "peddled favours for aid" (which as mentioned above, there isn't) then the way to get an investigation into it started, would be to present something providing reasonable grounds for suspicion (difficult because once again, there is no such evidence) to the relevant US authorities, who I believe would be the FBI and/or DoJ.

 

If those authorities felt there was something worth looking at they would then start an investigation. They might even, as part of their investigation, work with the State Department to contact the relevant legal authorities in the country where a US citizen was suspected of a criminal offence.

 

However what is not allowed (because it's a criminal offence in and of itself) is for a person involved in a federal election to directly ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

As President of the United States, Trump would have been recalcitrant in his duties had he not brought up Biden's conduct during that phone call.  That video of Biden bragging about withholding money unless the Ukraine prosecutor investigating his son was fired was evidence enough of wrongdoing. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by Kelsall

[Sujo]

9 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

As President of the United States, Trump would have been recalcitrant in his duties had he not brought up Biden's conduct during that phone call.  That video of Biden bragging about withholding money unless the Ukraine prosecutor investigating his son was fired was evidence enough of wrongdoing. 

Alternative facts again.

 

The fired prosecutor was NOT investigating. Thats why he was fired.

 

Im often amazed at the ‘intelligence’ of trumps base.

Edited October 7, 2019 by Sujo

[stevenl]

1 minute ago, Sujo said:

Alternative facts again.

 

The fired prosecutor was NOT investigating. Thats why he was fired.

 

Im often amazed at the ‘intelligence’ of trumps base.

Facts don't matter anymore, it is only about believes.

[bristolboy]

27 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

As President of the United States, Trump would have been recalcitrant in his duties had he not brought up Biden's conduct during that phone call.  That video of Biden bragging about withholding money unless the Ukraine prosecutor investigating his son was fired was evidence enough of wrongdoing. 

Except that the prosecutor in question was not investigating his son and never was. He had been investigating Burisma but had stopped over a year before he was fired. Shokin was fired for not pursuing corruption investigations. Biden was vice president. He was just following orders in carrying out administration policy. Whereas Trump is President and doesn't have that justification.

Edited October 7, 2019 by bristolboy

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, Becker said:

No, you're wrong:

 

Link: Lawyer for Ukraine whistleblower says he represents second whistleblower on Trump's actions

 

"The lawyer for the first intelligence whistleblower who came forward with accusations concerning President Donald Trump and his interactions with Ukraine said Sunday he is representing a second whistleblower regarding the President's actions.

Attorney Mark Zaid confirmed to CNN that he and other lawyers on his team are now representing the second person, who the lawyer said works in the intelligence community, has first-hand knowledge that supports claims made by the first whistleblower and has spoken to the intelligence community's inspector general."

Nevertheless, till the person actually testifies, it remains "MAY".

[johnnybangkok]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

As President of the United States, Trump would have been recalcitrant in his duties had he not brought up Biden's conduct during that phone call.  That video of Biden bragging about withholding money unless the Ukraine prosecutor investigating his son was fired was evidence enough of wrongdoing. 

How wrong this is has been pointed out to you in this thread and many, many, many other times in other threads you've been on.

The fact you are still punting this ridiculous point shows either complete willful ignorance, delusion to a worrying degree or just plain old trolling. I can't work out which one it is but if you are proven wrong time and time again as you have been here, can you at least move on to a more challenging counter argument?

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

 

The fired prosecutor was NOT investigating. Thats why he was fired.

 

 

 

Hahahahaha...so Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired because he was NOT investigating his son and Burisma?

Got it.

LOL

[Kelsall]

41 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

How wrong this is has been pointed out to you in this thread and many, many, many other times in other threads you've been on.

The fact you are still punting this ridiculous point shows either complete willful ignorance, delusion to a worrying degree or just plain old trolling. I can't work out which one it is but if you are proven wrong time and time again as you have been here, can you at least move on to a more challenging counter argument?

Feel free to put me on your ignore list and to read the federalist article I posted.  I will return the favor.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Feel free to put me on your ignore list and to read the federalist article I posted.  I will return the favor.

Your facts have been debunked. You know that but don't want to accept that. Up to you, but posting those alternative facts time and time again is not very persuasive or smart.

[Sujo]

14 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Hahahahaha...so Joe Biden got the prosecutor fired because he was NOT investigating his son and Burisma?

Got it.

LOL

Pressure from the UN, IMF, most european allies, even the ukraine govt wanted him gone and asked for US help to do it.

 

He did not have one open corruption case. With the US policy to get rid of him it ensured that a new prosecutor did investigate.

 

Hope u got it now. Yet again.

[johnnybangkok]

11 minutes ago, Kelsall said:

Feel free to put me on your ignore list and to read the federalist article I posted.  I will return the favor.

Feel free to throw your toys out of the pram. Your point has been debated to death and proven inconsequential. I'm just trying to move the conversation along. 

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Pressure from the UN, IMF, most european allies, even the ukraine govt wanted him gone and asked for US help to do it.

 

He did not have one open corruption case. With the US policy to get rid of him it ensured that a new prosecutor did investigate.

 

Hope u got it now. Yet again.

 

Ohhhh....so the Ukraine government wanted one of their own high level employees gone....but they still need permission and external interference from foreign elements to make that happen?

 

Got it....LOL.

Edited October 7, 2019 by JHolmesJr

[katana]

Seems like there's been a constant slow motion coup in America to attempt to remove Trump via the courts that's been going on since he was elected in 2016.

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, katana said:

Seems like there's been a constant slow motion coup in America to attempt to remove Trump via the courts that's been going on since he was elected in 2016.

Replying to that absurdly false accusation in the language of 45 --

No coup!

[bristolboy]

54 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Ohhhh....so the Ukraine government wanted one of their own high level employees gone....but they still need permission and external interference from foreign elements to make that happen?

 

Got it....LOL.

A little research would show you that while certain elements in the Ukrainian Executive branch backed Shokin, in the Ukrainian Parliament not so much. And amongst the populace, definitely unpopular because of his refusal to go after corruption. To his credit, though, he didn't entirely lack zealousness. He was dogged in going after anti-corruption forces. And when it was discovered that some of his anti-corruption prosecutors were in possession of large amounts of jewels, he responded by firing the prosecutors who were investigating them. And even when his investigation of Burisma, as desultory as it was, was active, it concerned events that took place before Hunter Biden joined the board. 

The Poroshenko government reluctantly fired Shokin due to pressure not just from the USA, the EU, and the IMF, but also from other sectors of the government and outrage amongst its citizens.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

Edited October 7, 2019 by bristolboy

[4675636b596f75]

22 hours ago, Sujo said:

The problem is that its illegal.

It is not.  We have a treaty with Ukraine to facilitate each other's criminal investigations.  Trump followed the tenets of the duly signed treaty.

 

Good luck with the coup.

[Slip]

1 minute ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

It is not.  We have a treaty with Ukraine to facilitate each other's criminal investigations.  Trump followed the tenets of the duly signed treaty.

 

Good luck with the coup.

Would you be good enough to cite the criminal investigation that Trump was supporting with his actions?

[4675636b596f75]

1 minute ago, Slip said:

Would you be good enough to cite the criminal investigation that Trump was supporting with his actions?

I don't know that there has to be.  He asked them to look into it, and it is covered by the treaty.

 

Good luck with the coup.

[candide]

23 hours ago, candide said:

Which includes fake arguments again.

For example, the treaty with Ukraine does not apply because the conditions set in the articles of the treaty are not met.

"Article 1(4) states explicitly that the Treaty is not intended to create rights in private parties to obtain, suppress, or exclude any evidence, or to impede the execution of a request. Article 2 provides for the establishment of Central Authorities and defines Central Authorities for purposes of the Treaty. For the United States, the Central Authority shall be the Attorney General or a person designated by the Attorney General.Article 4 prescribes the form and content of written requests under the Treaty, specifying in detail the information required in each request."

https://www.congress.gov/treaty-document/106th-congress/16/document-text

 

The text is unambiguous. In particular, if there is no official investigation by the AG, it cannot apply. The full text can be downloaded in pdf format in case you want to read it. I have posted this information before but I guess it will not prevent Trump's supporters to use this fake argument over and over.

 

You can try to twist it in any way you want, it will not alter the key issue: there is no official investigation about Biden.

 

 

6 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

It is not.  We have a treaty with Ukraine to facilitate each other's criminal investigations.  Trump followed the tenets of the duly signed treaty.

 

Good luck with the coup.

This fake argument has already been debunked. It did not meet the requirements in the treaty. Keep up with the thread.

Edited October 7, 2019 by candide

[4675636b596f75]

5 minutes ago, candide said:

 

This fake argument has already been debunked. It did not meet the requirements in the treaty. Keep up with the thread.

Good luck with the coup!  You'll need it.  The boomerang effect is in full motion.  Keep it up gents, you're only helping Trump's reelection. 

Edited October 7, 2019 by 4675636b596f75

[bristolboy]

37 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Good luck with the coup!  You'll need it.  The boomerang effect is in full motion.  Keep it up gents, you're only helping Trump's reelection. 

Next time, try responding with something relevant instead of the same tired mantra.