Republicans want Hunter Biden, whistleblower to testify in open hearings

[stevenl]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

And which investigations would those be?  Can you list one, other than the investigation into the genesis of the Russia hoax?  And if so, what information about any specific investigation has been leaked (reports of Barr and Durham's recent movements don't count as there is no news of substance regarding what any their meetings were about or whom they met with)?  Even the well known investigation into the origins of the Russia hoax?  Fact is you don't hear boo.

So the investigation going on in an attempt to protect Trump doesn't count, and the leaking there doesn't count because there is nothing of substance. 

 

Right.

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate corruption because either a) he wanted to harm his political rival or b) he wanted to investigate legitimate corruption by a political rival.  To answer the question of "what Trump did" one needs to know if the Bidens were corrupt.  It would show that b), not a), is the case.

 

Your problem, and that of a lot of people here, is that you consider a) as the only option.

Even if b were the case the way Trump choose is illegal.

[Sujo]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate corruption because either a) he wanted to harm his political rival or b) he wanted to investigate legitimate corruption by a political rival.  To answer the question of "what Trump did" one needs to know if the Bidens were corrupt.  It would show that b), not a), is the case.

 

Your problem, and that of a lot of people here, is that you consider a) as the only option.

No. It has nothing to do whether bidens did anything wrong. Do you know why he is being investigsted at all and the evidence against him?

 

It has nothing to do with whether they are corrupt or not. Its what trump did to get them investigated.

 

So again, what evidence can they give regarding an investigation into him asking a foreign govt to do it. Do you think they where privvy to his conversations?

[bristolboy]

19 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Trump asked Zelensky to investigate corruption because either a) he wanted to harm his political rival or b) he wanted to investigate legitimate corruption by a political rival.  To answer the question of "what Trump did" one needs to know if the Bidens were corrupt.  It would show that b), not a), is the case.

 

Your problem, and that of a lot of people here, is that you consider a) as the only option.

Even if there were valid grounds for an investigation - there weren't, but for the sake of argument let's say there were - it was obviously unethical and lethal to any pretense of impartiality to ask Zelensky to consult with Giuliani. Giuliani has explicitly said he was there as Trump's private attorney to defend Trump, Maybe in your mind, Trump's interests are identical with those of the United States of America, but not so much to anyone with any appreciation of legal ethics. Your defense of Trump's conduct is farcical.

[Slickrick]

The D's already made this a clown show.

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So the investigation going on in an attempt to protect Trump doesn't count, and the leaking there doesn't count because there is nothing of substance. 

 

Right.

The one that's supposed to "protect" Trump?  Never heard of it.  Which investigation are you referring to?  Name it. 

[Skallywag]

5 hours ago, Kelsall said:

What evidence?  Everything's going on behind closed doors with selective leaking by the Dems.  Even a Dem congressman on TV said he did not know how he would vote on impeachment because he has yet to see the evidence.  They need to get Joe and Hunter Biden, as well as the whistleblower and Adam Schiff to give public testimony.  Then we will get to the bottom of what really happened.

Bidens, Shiff, and whistleblower have nothing to do with whether Trump broke rules/laws of the constitution concerning the powers of his office. Plent of evidence from the 2,677 pages of testimony released a day or 2 ago. (link below). 

Don't know what you mean "behind closed doors", you mean no reporters in the hearings? Republican members of the House were at all the impeachment hearings/testimonies.  Televised hearings start soon.  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/impeachment-transcript-takeaways/index.html    

 

[Sujo]

2 minutes ago, Skallywag said:

Bidens, Shiff, and whistleblower have nothing to do with whether Trump broke rules/laws of the constitution concerning the powers of his office. Plent of evidence from the 2,677 pages of testimony released a day or 2 ago. (link below). 

Don't know what you mean "behind closed doors", you mean no reporters in the hearings? Republican members of the House were at all the impeachment hearings/testimonies.  Televised hearings start soon.  https://edition.cnn.com/2019/11/09/politics/impeachment-transcript-takeaways/index.html    

 

Please stop with the facts. Hannity is God to some.

[Tippaporn]

21 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No. It has nothing to do whether bidens did anything wrong. Do you know why he is being investigsted at all and the evidence against him?

 

It has nothing to do with whether they are corrupt or not. Its what trump did to get them investigated.

 

So again, what evidence can they give regarding an investigation into him asking a foreign govt to do it. Do you think they where privvy to his conversations?

Do you understand that if the Bidens were involved in corruption then Trump is not only within his legal purview but also has a constitutional responsibility to see that justice is served?  Do you understand that being his political opponent in a presidential race does not insulate Biden from the law?  And do you understand that if the Bidens were in fact involved in illegalities then Trump's request to Zelensky was appropriate and it was not to solely harm a political opponent?

 

Sujo, at this point if you do not understand these basic issues then please . . . please do not ask me anything further.  For if you do not understand and continue to deny any understanding then I will no longer respond to you.

[Tippaporn]

35 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Even if b were the case the way Trump choose is illegal.

Please post the section of law that prohibits Trump from requesting assistance in corruption cases from foreign leaders.  Do not claim it is illegal if you do, in fact, not know.

[stevenl]

4 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Do you understand that if the Bidens were involved in corruption then Trump is not only within his legal purview but also has a constitutional responsibility to see that justice is served?  Do you understand that being his political opponent in a presidential race does not insulate Biden from the law?  And do you understand that if the Bidens were in fact involved in illegalities then Trump's request to Zelensky was appropriate and it was not to solely harm a political opponent?

 

Sujo, at this point if you do not understand these basic issues then please . . . please do not ask me anything further.  For if you do not understand and continue to deny any understanding then I will no longer respond to you.

So you live in your own bubble with your own laws, values and ethics.

 

In the mean time in the real world ....

[Tippaporn]

25 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Even if there were valid grounds for an investigation - there weren't, but for the sake of argument let's say there were - it was obviously unethical and lethal to any pretense of impartiality to ask Zelensky to consult with Giuliani. Giuliani has explicitly said he was there as Trump's private attorney to defend Trump, Maybe in your mind, Trump's interests are identical with those of the United States of America, but not so much to anyone with any appreciation of legal ethics. Your defense of Trump's conduct is farcical.

There is evidence to support corruption by the Bidens.  I've linked to just a portion of what is known already.

 

Special envoys have been used by past presidents, going as far back as Roosevelt.  Using Giuliani is not without precedent.  Granted the legitimacy has been argued by some in the past as well.  But Giuliani's role is by no means unique.

 

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR353-USING-SPECIAL-ENVOYS-IN-HIGH-STAKES-CONFLICT-DIPLOMACY.pdf

 

Whether Trump's request was unethical or impartial is dependent on one's bias.  And you know that to be fact.  In my opinion it was neither.

[Becker]

11 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Please post the section of law that prohibits Trump from requesting assistance in corruption cases from foreign leaders.  Do not claim it is illegal if you do, in fact, not know.

Requesting? You mean blackmailing, right?

[Tippaporn]

20 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Please stop with the facts. Hannity is God to some.

Perhaps as CNN "takeaways" might be to others.  LOL

[Sujo]

16 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Please post the section of law that prohibits Trump from requesting assistance in corruption cases from foreign leaders.  Do not claim it is illegal if you do, in fact, not know.

Please point to the law that states that for impeachment it must be illegal.

[Tippaporn]

14 minutes ago, stevenl said:

So you live in your own bubble with your own laws, values and ethics.

 

In the mean time in the real world ....

What part of the logic escapes you, stevenl?  Or, would you be willing to point out where the logic is amiss?  Please do so.

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Perhaps as CNN "takeaways" might be to others.  LOL

I have yet to read a comment by you on Trump’s Impeachment, or indeed anything associated with US politics, let alone the US Constitution that provides any indication that you have the slightest knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

 

[Sujo]

5 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Perhaps as CNN "takeaways" might be to others.  LOL

Perhaps you have not read the evidence.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

What part of the logic escapes you, stevenl?  Or, would you be willing to point out where the logic is amiss?  Please do so.

As u pointed out earlier. I thought you only dealt in facts. Whats logic got to do with it.

 

Could it be that there is lots of testimony under oath that trump tried to bribe ukraine for his own benefit. He didnt ask for any corruption investigation except for one, biden.

 

So logic says....

[Sujo]

So now shall we discuss the topic.

 

How will hunter bidens evidence have anything to do with what trump did. Or even any discussion on the evidence already provided. You know, the facts.

 

In the interim, since trump lovers talk about anything except what trump did. Just thought germany sent a beautiful big part of the berlin wall to help him with mexico. Priceless. 

 

https://qz.com/1745087/berliners-troll-trump-sending-him-a-2-7-ton-piece-of-berlin-wall/

[Tippaporn]

6 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I have yet to read a comment by you on Trump’s Impeachment, or indeed anything associated with US politics, let alone the US Constitution that provides any indication that you have the slightest knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

 

That's a sad commentary regarding yourself, Chomper.

[Sujo]

1 minute ago, Tippaporn said:

That's a sad commentary regarding yourself, Chomper.

Yes, how dare he ask for you to be on topic.

 

Hint. Its about the trump impeachment. What do you.say about the evidence.

[elmrfudd]

13 hours ago, Tug said:

Sure why not as long as ivanka is there as well so she can explained hersielf lol the dems aren’t going to let the republicans turn this into a clown show lol this is about trump trying to extort another country for personal gain it’s not a desperate attempt to smear someone else lol kinda ironic the slme master is beeing brought down by trying to smear another lol kinda like beeing hoisted by your owne petard imo

it was a clown show before the orchestrated "whistleblower" creation, what are you afraid of?

[elmrfudd]

32 minutes ago, Sujo said:

Perhaps you have not read the evidence.

perhaps you have read the "evidence" but only the tiny bits in a crafted context to feed the phony narrative

[elmrfudd]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I have yet to read a comment by you on Trump’s Impeachment, or indeed anything associated with US politics, let alone the US Constitution that provides any indication that you have the slightest knowledge of what you are talking about.

 

 

I have yet to read any evidence that warrants impeachment, but hey, go for it. you have wanted it from before the inauguration. it will be  a glorious  backfire and another 4 years of leftists tears and agony. 

 

But maybe after it all ends up in a pointless emotional irrational pile of sour grapes, you might be able to move on to something useful.

[elmrfudd]

50 minutes ago, Becker said:

Requesting? You mean blackmailing, right?

please detail this "blackmailing" you refer to. how dare a country ask to get to the bottom of the phony information seeded into the democratic effort to undermine an election.

[Number 6]

It's just gonna be funny when Trump is elected again.

 

Don't worry about the management of the country it's in hands of deep state.

[rabas]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

1 hour ago, Tippaporn said:

Perhaps as CNN "takeaways" might be to others.  LOL

I have yet to read a comment by you on Trump’s Impeachment, or indeed anything associated with US politics, let alone the US Constitution that provides any indication that you have the slightest knowledge of what you are talking about.

OTH, it appears he has a clear understanding of US mainstream news media.

[bristolboy]

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

There is evidence to support corruption by the Bidens.  I've linked to just a portion of what is known already.

 

Special envoys have been used by past presidents, going as far back as Roosevelt.  Using Giuliani is not without precedent.  Granted the legitimacy has been argued by some in the past as well.  But Giuliani's role is by no means unique.

 

https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR353-USING-SPECIAL-ENVOYS-IN-HIGH-STAKES-CONFLICT-DIPLOMACY.pdf

 

Whether Trump's request was unethical or impartial is dependent on one's bias.  And you know that to be fact.  In my opinion it was neither.

It is not at all dependent on one's bias. Rudolph Giuliani explicitly said that he was involved in this as Trump's private attorney to defend him. He was not involved on behalf of the United States of American.

And your citation of the special envoy link is ludicrous. Did you even read the title of the piece? 

Here it is: Using Special Envoys In High-Stakes Conflict Diplomacy

So, the article you linked to is about assigning special envoys  to high stakes conflicts. You know, like the 3 year conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina  and the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia and the Cuban withdrawal from Angola. Those were the examples cited. In other words special envoys play the role of honest broker between 2 parties in conflict. what does requesting a criminal investigation of a few American citizens by the Ukrainian government have to do with that? 

And the delegation of such responsibilities is not a matter of a confidential chat between 2 heads of state but is publicly revealed in order to let the parties in conflictparties know that the special envoy enjoys the backing of the President.

In short, the article you linked to is utterly irrelevant.

[rabas]

18 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

It is not at all dependent on one's bias. Rudolph Giuliani explicitly said that he was involved in this as Trump's private attorney to defend him. He was not involved on behalf of the United States of American.

And your citation of the special envoy link is ludicrous. Did you even read the title of the piece? 

Here it is: Using Special Envoys In High-Stakes Conflict Diplomacy

So, the article you linked to is about assigning special envoys  to high stakes conflicts. You know, like the 3 year conflict in Bosnia-Herzegovina  and the withdrawal of South African troops from Namibia and the Cuban withdrawal from Angola. Those were the examples cited. In other words special envoys play the role of honest broker between 2 parties in conflict. what does requesting a criminal investigation of a few American citizens by the Ukrainian government have to do with that? 

And the delegation of such responsibilities is not a matter of a confidential chat between 2 heads of state but is publicly revealed in order to let the parties in conflictparties know that the special envoy enjoys the backing of the President.

In short, the article you linked to is utterly irrelevant.

 

Russia/Ukraine is not a high conflict area? It's a most strategically important one, including support with advanced US weapons, and corruption has been a serious part of the equation.