Democrats set Thursday vote on U.S. House path in Trump impeachment probe

[Thomas J]

[johnnybangkok]

24 minutes ago, xylophone said:

Whilst I have got your attention JB, and referring to the quote of yours which I mistakenly posted, I would like to ask you a question as you seem to be much more knowledgeable in the workings of things like the impeachment process and how other things work in the USA.

 

If it is true that Trump has been found guilty of "stealing" funds from a children's charity, then surely he is guilty of theft/misappropriation of funds/fraud and he should be prosecuted or removed from office.

 

Now, whether or not that falls under the "impeachment process" I'm not sure, and even if it doesn't, how on earth can a president of the United States remain in office once found guilty of this?

 

Maybe there are other things in the pipeline which prosecutors are looking at, like tax evasion, illegal payments and so on, but the question again is........can he be removed from office for the theft of funds from a charity?

 

To expect a lying, vain narcissist to step down because of this would be far too much to ask, because he has no conscience in this regard, but being removed from office would send a message to the rest of the world that American politics are not as corrupt as Trump himself.

The issue with the charity fraud is that prosecutors have agreed a 'deal' with Trump that says he has to dissolve the charity, give whatever funds still remain to other charities and pay the $2 million fine to avoid a criminal prosecution. However it does not stop the lawsuit the AG’s office has filed against the foundation, which if proven, could bring criminal charges, but until then it's just a slap on the wrist and a hefty fine. This is the stumbling block to removing him from office for the theft as the 'theft' hasn't in fact been proven or prosecuted.

The interesting one though would be that impeachment is not a criminal process but a political one and The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, can be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. The issue here of course is that this blatant act of defrauding a charity is certainly not treason nor bribery and it would be hard to argue it as 'high crimes', so since it then falls into 'misdemeanors' it then becomes too ambiguous to impeach and remove. Also, the U.S. Justice Department has a decades-old policy that a sitting president cannot be indicted, indicating that criminal charges against Trump would be unlikely. 

Amazing eh? The President of The United States is proven liable for defrauding a charity and publicly accepts that he used the charity to promote his presidential bid, pay off business debts and purchase a portrait of himself for one of his hotels, yet not only does he get to keep his job, he also doesn't get criminally prosecuted (yet). 

The Dems stand a much better chance of impeaching through the Ukraine scandal (actually committed a felony under campaign finance laws) which in turn could be said to be treasonous and perhaps bribery but is certainly a 'misdemeanor'. He is also guilty of obstruction of justice by blocking congressional subpoenas which the Senate (GOP run) may see as a step too far and very hard to justify an acquittal over.  The other things you have mentioned could be used but again the Dems have to be very careful as they need to pick their reasons well so if the Senate lets him off, they will have a VERY hard time justifying their actions to an increasingly disgusted electorate.  

  

 

 

[xylophone]

6 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

Amazing eh? The President of The United States is proven liable for defrauding a charity and publicly accepts that he used the charity to promote his presidential bid, pay off business debts and purchase a portrait of himself for one of his hotels, yet not only does he get to keep his job, he also doesn't get criminally prosecuted (yet). 

Agree......just insane. And thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated.

[Thomas J]

5 minutes ago, johnnybangkok said:

The Dems stand a much better chance of impeaching through the Ukraine scandal (actually committed a felony under campaign finance laws)

Johhnybangkok I am not an attorney but at this point there is no campaign and Biden may or may not be the nominee so to say any effort by Ukraine against Biden was a campaign violation would be a stretch. PS if Trump did something wrong with Ukraine, how do his actions compare to Bidens? 
 

 

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Bristolboy that is true, however it shows you that it is part of the Democratic playbook to start to impeach every GOP president since Eisenhower.  The Democrats have the media on their side and they know full well they can get headlines about the start of an impeachment process trying to create the impression of wrongdoing even if it is not warranted. Part of their propaganda campaign.  No different than marching a group of accusers against Kavanaugh's appointment hearing without any corroboration. 

The republicans had some form of impeachment precedings levelled against the last 2 democrats. Does that show some Republican conspiracy?

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Thomas J said:

Johhnybangkok I am not an attorney but at this point there is no campaign and Biden may or may not be the nominee so to say any effort by Ukraine against Biden was a campaign violation would be a stretch. PS if Trump did something wrong with Ukraine, how do his actions compare to Bidens? 
 

 

Becauses Biden was acting upon orders from the President of the United States. In cooperation with the EU and the IMF. Not on his own behalf. Why is this so difficult to understand?

[Thomas J]

Just now, bristolboy said:

Becauses Biden was acting upon orders from the President of the United States. In cooperation with the EU and the IMF. Not on his own behalf. Why is this so difficult to understand?

bristolboy,  now just exactly how do you know that Biden was acting on orders from the President.  And if that was the case, why were there not charges brought against Obama.  Or is it a slight of hand to say, Obama ordered me to withhold aid to remove a Ukrainian Prosecutor that was investigating my son? 

[Thomas J]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

The republicans had some form of impeachment precedings levelled against the last 2 democrats. Does that show some Republican conspiracy?

bristolboy The Republicans brought impeachment proceedings against Clinton who clearly had misdeeds.  Though it was suggested by Allan West that Obama should be impeached for the prisoner exchange of five Taliban leaders for a deserter, there were never any proceedings. 

[bristolboy]

8 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

bristolboy,  now just exactly how do you know that Biden was acting on orders from the President.  And if that was the case, why were there not charges brought against Obama.  Or is it a slight of hand to say, Obama ordered me to withhold aid to remove a Ukrainian Prosecutor that was investigating my son? 

This is just absurd. The VP is going to go off on his own and make demands without the approval of the President and State Department?  Maybe that's how things work in your universe. Not so much in this one. Look up Occam's Razor.

Biden was not alone in targeting Shokin for anti-corruption reasons; he was joined by other European and U.S. officials. U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt and the Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland both said in 2015 that Shokin's office was failing to root out corruption. Meanwhile, protests within Ukraine were calling for Shokin's removal, and the International Monetary Fund also threatened to delay $40 billion of aid in light of corruption in Ukraine.^[78

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump–Ukraine_scandal#Ukraine_and_the_Bidens

 

And no, the preponderance of evidence shows that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma much less his son when Biden called for him to be dismissed. Everyone involved with Shokin back then except Shokin says this isn't true. Shokin made the claim he was investigating Biden in an affidavit he was requested to make on behalf of Dmytro Firtash, an oligarch currently fighting extradition to the US to face criminal charges there. Firtash lost his lucrative and corrupt position in the Ukrainian gas industry in part because of interventions by Biden and Ambassador Yovanovitch. Motive much? And the Ukraine gas industry is much more honest and financially healthy because Firtash is gone.

 

[Thomas J]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

This is just absurd. The VP is going to go off on his own and make demands without the approval of the President and State Department

bristolboy perhaps he did do it with Obama's approval.  That just means that Obama was complicit not that Biden was exonerated.  So in all the corrupt world of Ukraine, there was just one prosecutor that was targeted for removal for failure to prosecute corruption.  And, that prosecutor just happened to be investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.  DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST. 

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

bristolboy perhaps he did do it with Obama's approval.  That just means that Obama was complicit not that Biden was exonerated.  So in all the corrupt world of Ukraine, there was just one prosecutor that was targeted for removal for failure to prosecute corruption.  And, that prosecutor just happened to be investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.  DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST. 

Shokin wasn't just one prosecutor. You don't even know that he was Prosecutor General of Ukraine?  He was in charge of all governmental prosecutions. And Obama was maybe complicit in defending Hunter Biden? You think because you can put something into words that gives it a possible basis in fact?  

And once again, there's a ton of evidence to show that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma when he was fired. And only his word that he was. And given the huge amount of evidence about corruption in he Prosecutor General's office, I know which evidence a rational person would believe.

[Eric Loh]

43 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

bristolboy perhaps he did do it with Obama's approval.  That just means that Obama was complicit not that Biden was exonerated.  So in all the corrupt world of Ukraine, there was just one prosecutor that was targeted for removal for failure to prosecute corruption.  And, that prosecutor just happened to be investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.  DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST. 

It was a foreign policy decision not Obama. It was also the similar to policy decision of EU. That contrast sharply with Trump’s decision which now is the centerpiece of the impeachment hearing. 

[thaibeachlovers]

59 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It was a foreign policy decision not Obama. It was also the similar to policy decision of EU. That contrast sharply with Trump’s decision which now is the centerpiece of the impeachment hearing. 

Obama must have had to approve his VP going overseas so he must be complicit, and the EU does not make US foreign policy.

[Sujo]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obama must have had to approve his VP going overseas so he must be complicit, and the EU does not make US foreign policy.

Tell us what political rival he wanted ukraine to investigate?

[johnnybangkok]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

Johhnybangkok I am not an attorney but at this point there is no campaign and Biden may or may not be the nominee so to say any effort by Ukraine against Biden was a campaign violation would be a stretch. PS if Trump did something wrong with Ukraine, how do his actions compare to Bidens? 
 

 

I thought I had already explained this adequately enough in my previous post and Bristolboy and Eric Loh have also eloquently answered but if you need it spelling out again, then let me begin.

Even if Bidens actions were proven to be to solely protect his son (which has absolutely been proven not to be the case) he would be guilty of at least extortion. This is a criminal act for which he would face investigation by the Justice Department and thereafter, indictment, prosecution and punishment. Trump could have gone down this route and asked for a full investigation using the appropriate legal channels but instead decided to ask for a 'favour' on the back of withholding some $400 million congressionally approved aid to the Ukraine. He back-channeled it through Giuliani and used a now well established 'quid pro quo'. This is where he comes unstuck because amazingly enough, politicians are not allowed to use bribery, blackmail, extortion, strong-arming and other dubious techniques against political opponents, and Biden is most certainly a political opponent. 

Do you understand it now? Even if Biden was guilty (he's not of course), this does not acquit Trump and his efforts to smear a political rival with massively dubious and illegal methods. This is why he will be impeached, and rightly so.

    

[bristolboy]

16 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Obama must have had to approve his VP going overseas so he must be complicit, and the EU does not make US foreign policy.

Obama is complicit in what? No, the EU doesn't make US foreign policy but the fact is they wanted Shokin out because of his lack of results in prosecuting corruption and his own possible corruption. Same for the IMF. Same for the Ukrainian legislature. Same for anti-corruption NGO. But the oligarchs, including Poroshenko, the President, who should have been seriously investigated for corruption, wanted to keep Shokin on.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Thomas J said:

bristolboy perhaps he did do it with Obama's approval.  That just means that Obama was complicit not that Biden was exonerated.  So in all the corrupt world of Ukraine, there was just one prosecutor that was targeted for removal for failure to prosecute corruption.  And, that prosecutor just happened to be investigating Burisma and Hunter Biden.  DOES NOT PASS THE SMELL TEST. 

Your knowledge of what happened doesnt pass the smell test. Has fox news been at it today?

 

The prosecutor was NOT investigating anyone for corruption, thats why everyone wanted him gone. With him gone an investigation was then done on burisma. Found nothing.

 

Now for the smell test. You think something is wrong because the US put pressure on ukraine to fire a prosecutor who was not investigating. Upon his firing they investigated. No mention of any investgation of a political rival there. All legal and official US policy.

 

At the other end of the spectrum. Trump tell ukraine to investigate his main political rival and for them to consult with his personal lawyer about it. Trump personal policy.  Against the constitution.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, johnnybangkok said:

I thought I had already explained this adequately enough in my previous post and Bristolboy and Eric Loh have also eloquently answered but if you need it spelling out again, then let me begin.

Even if Bidens actions were proven to be to solely protect his son (which has absolutely been proven not to be the case) he would be guilty of at least extortion. This is a criminal act for which he would face investigation by the Justice Department and thereafter, indictment, prosecution and punishment. Trump could have gone down this route and asked for a full investigation using the appropriate legal channels but instead decided to ask for a 'favour' on the back of withholding some $400 million congressionally approved aid to the Ukraine. He back-channeled it through Giuliani and used a now well established 'quid pro quo'. This is where he comes unstuck because amazingly enough, politicians are not allowed to use bribery, blackmail, extortion, strong-arming and other dubious techniques against political opponents, and Biden is most certainly a political opponent. 

Do you understand it now? Even if Biden was guilty (he's not of course), this does not acquit Trump and his efforts to smear a political rival with massively dubious and illegal methods. This is why he will be impeached, and rightly so.

    

Just the fact that he counseled Zelensky to consult with iuliani, who was his personal lawyer and himself stipulated that his job was to defend Trump in a private capacity, should be enough to bring charges against Trump. And the fact is that all this nonsense stems essentially from Dmytro Firtash, who is fighting extradition to the USA and has slimed those who helped push him from his corrupt perch in the Ukraine: namely Joseph Biden and ex-ambassador Yovanovitch. 

[bristolboy]

11 minutes ago, Thomas J said:

Sujo your knowledge of the "facts" do not match the prosecutor Victor Shutkin's own statements and documents given to the Inspector General.  They show he was investigating the founder of Burisma who was the person who hired Hunter Biden.  Joe Biden was "point" person on only two countries.  Ukraine and China.  His son accompanied him to China and walked away with a $1 billion dollar contract to buy properties despite having ZERO experience.  He also was awarded $50,000 per month Burisma contract as a consultant despite having no oil and gas experience or any business experience in the Ukraine.  If you think that passes the "smell test" I suppose you also don't think that the Russian's investment firm that backed the Uranium One purchase hiring Bill Clinton for a $500,000 speaking fee ( 5 times his normal fee) and that the president of Uranium One  Frank Giustra donates $31.3 million to the Clinton Foundation, to be followed in 2007 with a pledge of at least $100 million.  I guess he just felt philanthropic after Hillary's State department approved the sale of Uranium One at its 20% of the U.S. reserves to Russia.  Certainly nothing smelly there either.  BS 

First off, stop dishonestly using "smell test" in scare quotes. You used that to question why one prosecutor out of so many was singled out. He was targeted because he was the head prosecutor for Ukraine, not because he was just one prosecutor out of many. And given his conduct while in office, and the fact that pretty much all of Ukrainian civil society with the exception of the corrupt oligarchs wanted him out, I have no confidence in his honesty. Nor should any rational person.

 

And I do believe that Hunter Biden was hired because he was the son of the vice president. And that's sleazy. Just as i believe that it wasn't a coincidence that Ivanka got a whole bunch of trademarks approved by the chinese at record speed around the time that Trump spared the Chinese Corporation ZTE from death. Or that it's no coincidence Jared got a sweetheart deal that bailed him out of a terrible investment he had made in 666th 5th Ave. But just because something is sleazy that doesn't mean it's criminal. The only so called evidence against the Bidens originates with 3 sleazy characters, Firtash, Parnas, and Furman. All 3 of whom are under indictment by the US government and all of whom have a very sleazy financial history.

 

And your nonsense about Uranium One was based on reporting by Peter Schweizer. The story has since been exposed as mostly a mishmash of falsehoods and hoodoo.. I don't know what kind of fetid websites you cruise, but they are lying to you. First off, the State Dept. was only one of nine agencies asked to approve the Uranium One deal. And the lead agency was the Treasury Dept. In addition, there's no evidence that Hillary Clinton even was involved in the decision. Moreover, even if the Uranium one deal hadn't been approved, the role of these nine agencies was only advisory. Obama had the right to approve it or not regardless of what the advice was.

 

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

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hillary-clinton-uranium-russia-deal/

[Crazy Alex]

7 hours ago, xylophone said:

Agree......just insane. And thanks for the detailed reply, much appreciated.

If it's insane not to prosecute, why was a civil settlement reached? It appears your complaint should be directed at the prosecutor(s).

[heybruce]

More of the recycled what-abouts.  Trump defenders, please try to get this simple fact through your head:  A quid-pro-quo can be legal or illegal, just as taking money from a bank can be done legally or illegally. 

 

You can take money from a bank using a deposit slip (legal) or a gun (illegal).

 

Similarly, aid money can be withheld from Ukraine until an incompetent prosecutor is dismissed in order to ensure the money isn't squandered on corruption (legal), or it can be withheld to blackmail the country's president into publicly announcing investigations into discredited conspiracy theories (illegal).

 

Got it?

 

BTW, I agree Hunter Biden was probably trading on his father's name, just as all the Trump children are trading on their father's name.  It speaks poorly of all of them, but is not illegal.

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, heybruce said:

More of the recycled what-abouts.  Trump defenders, please try to get this simple fact through your head:  A quid-pro-quo can be legal or illegal, just as taking money from a bank can be done legally or illegally. 

 

You can take money from a bank using a deposit slip (legal) or a gun (illegal).

 

Similarly, aid money can be withheld from Ukraine until an incompetent prosecutor is dismissed in order to ensure the money isn't squandered on corruption (legal), or it can be withheld to blackmail the country's president into publicly announcing investigations into discredited conspiracy theories (illegal).

 

Got it?

 

BTW, I agree Hunter Biden was probably trading on his father's name, just as all the Trump children are trading on their father's name.  It speaks poorly of all of them, but is not illegal.

You left out your problem. Trump made no mention of holding back aid at all, much less in exchange for Ukraine to "find out what happened". Oops!

 

Then of course, "find out what happened" could have resulted in finding out Biden did nothing wrong- and that would have satisfied Trump's request.

 

Now, let's address your attempt to equate crack head Hunter Biden with the Trump children. Of course Trump helped his children along in the real estate business. For decades. That's what parents do. Any rational person would expect that.

 

Hunter Biden's sudden segue to international business after being kicked out of the Navy for drugs using an elected official parent as leverage is obviously an entirely different matter.

[bristolboy]

3 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

You left out your problem. Trump made no mention of holding back aid at all, much less in exchange for Ukraine to "find out what happened". Oops!

 

Then of course, "find out what happened" could have resulted in finding out Biden did nothing wrong- and that would have satisfied Trump's request.

 

Now, let's address your attempt to equate crack head Hunter Biden with the Trump children. Of course Trump helped his children along in the real estate business. For decades. That's what parents do. Any rational person would expect that.

 

Hunter Biden's sudden segue to international business after being kicked out of the Navy for drugs using an elected official parent as leverage is obviously an entirely different matter.

The question isn't whether Hunter Biden got his jobs because his father was Joseph Biden, but whether Joseph Biden illegally intervened to get his son jobs. Got any evidence?

 

And what about Ivanka receiving trademark approvals in record time from the Chinese?

 

Or Jared Kushner getting a sweetheart deal that bailed him out of a disastrous deal that threatened to drag the family business down?

 

Again, sleazy doesn't mean illegal.

[Crazy Alex]

1 minute ago, bristolboy said:

The question isn't whether Hunter Biden got his jobs because his father was Joseph Biden, but whether Joseph Biden illegally intervened to get his son jobs. Got any evidence?

 

And what about Ivanka receiving trademark approvals in record time from the Chinese?

 

Or Jared Kushner getting a sweetheart deal that bailed him out of a disastrous deal that threatened to drag the family business down?

 

Again, sleazy doesn't mean illegal.

Well yes, obviously Hunter Biden can offer insight into whether his father acted illegally. I suspect Republicans know a crack head will be easy to pry open on the stand and find out.

 

As for the Trump offspring, perhaps you should demand an investigation. I'm sure Americans aren't getting weary of the "get Trump!" posture of the last three years.

[Tounge Thaied]

Just imagine how much money is being wasted on this horse<deleted>. Americans continue to pay for their slavery. 

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, Tounge Thaied said:

Just imagine how much money is being wasted on this horse<deleted>. Americans continue to pay for their slavery. 

Actually the Mueller investigation ran at a profit. And i'm sure the costs are nothing as compared to the payments made by various government agencies to Trump's resorts around the world.

[bristolboy]

2 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

Well yes, obviously Hunter Biden can offer insight into whether his father acted illegally. I suspect Republicans know a crack head will be easy to pry open on the stand and find out.

 

As for the Trump offspring, perhaps you should demand an investigation. I'm sure Americans aren't getting weary of the "get Trump!" posture of the last three years.

So the criteria for an investigation isn't just whether something looks sleazy, which is baseless enough, but also whether Americans aren't going to be entertained by it.  Your understanding of the legal system and how it works is very special.

[Chomper Higgot]

12 minutes ago, Crazy Alex said:

You left out your problem. Trump made no mention of holding back aid at all, much less in exchange for Ukraine to "find out what happened". Oops!

 

Then of course, "find out what happened" could have resulted in finding out Biden did nothing wrong- and that would have satisfied Trump's request.

 

Now, let's address your attempt to equate crack head Hunter Biden with the Trump children. Of course Trump helped his children along in the real estate business. For decades. That's what parents do. Any rational person would expect that.

 

Hunter Biden's sudden segue to international business after being kicked out of the Navy for drugs using an elected official parent as leverage is obviously an entirely different matter.

All these references to ‘sudden’ reminds me of you registering your account on April 1st, then remaining utterly silent (at least under this username) until you suddenly in October wake up and start posting multiple daily missives, all on right wing themes, pro Trump or anti Impeachment.

 

Odd behavior that.

 

 

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

So the criteria for an investigation isn't just whether something looks sleazy, which is baseless enough, but also whether Americans aren't going to be entertained by it.  Your understanding of the legal system and how it works is very special.

No. You are grossly misrepresenting what I said. That's what people who are losing arguments resort to.

[Crazy Alex]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

All these references to ‘sudden’ reminds me of you registering your account on April 1st, then remaining utterly silent (at least under this username) until you suddenly in October wake up and start posting multiple daily missives, all on right wing themes, pro Trump or anti Impeachment.

 

Odd behavior that.

 

 

What's odd about it? I have a life. And that didn't include this web site until recently. But your choice to go personal is noted. That's what people who are losing arguments do.