On 11/24/2019 at 8:58 PM, darksidedog said:

You seem to be missing the fact that the whole of the EU, and many in the US, not just Mr. Biden were trying to get the prosecutor fired, because he was notoriously corrupt.

I have seen absolutely zero evidence of any wrongdoing whatsoever by either of the Bidens, only unsubstantiated allegations, which have been debunked as utter rubbish.

If you are in a position to provide any evidence, not hypothesis and general slander, please share it with us.

I am making no judgment on the issue regarding Mr. Trump. It is not my prerogative. The general rule of law is that when someone is suspected of committing a crime, that action is investigated, which is what is happening here. When all of the facts are in, a call will be made.

Trying to smear others while suggesting a legitimate inquiry should not happen, flies in the face of adherence to the legal system.

You make good points Darkside but when you say "You seem to be missing the fact that the whole of the EU, and many in the US, not just Mr. Biden were trying to get the prosecutor fired, because he was notoriously corrupt." it doesn't really matter that many others wanted the prosecutor fired. What matters is that Biden (while VP) was restricting funds until it happened. He said it and it's on tape/video. That would constitute Quid Pro Quo(a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something). 

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by HuskerDo

3 hours ago, candide said:

As I mentioned already a few posts before, it's been told under oath by Trump's friend and GOP financer, Sondland (and also by Taylor). It's been also diffused by various media, including Fox News. Disturbing facts seem to be quickly forgotten....

I didn't watch the hearings on Fox News.  I watched them all, every minute of them and it was on C-Span.  What was told "under oath" by Trump's friend ... oh wait, is he Trump's friend?  Who told you that?  Trump says he is not, but no matter. 

 

Exactly what was told under oath.  Remember, I watched it all. 

5 hours ago, rabas said:

I want to see the US government, congress, and especially the Democrats,  get on with the business of the country and its people,  which they have ignored for 3 years now.

 

Do you really want to see this go on another 5+ years?

You shall get that truth if the Impeachment is voted in the affirmative, and I'm sure these people will testify in the Senate.  You'll get your "under oath," if this happens.  Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

3 hours ago, candide said:

The moving target tactic ????:

- he did not do it

- he did it but was just asking to fight corruption 'in general'

- he did ask about the Bidens, but nothing wrong to ask to start an investigation into anyone

- he only asked for an announcement to support his electoral propaganda but it's not a big deal

- etc....

 

he released the transcript of his call.....you didn't expose any of this information.

take a chill pill....

23 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

he released the transcript of his call.....you didn't expose any of this information.

take a chill pill....

Don't tell me you did not read it

Ex. SONDLAND: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.

 

So, can you produce other testimonies under oath that show that Sondland did not fell the truth?

 

The reason I did not provide any quote is because he is trolling.

Edited November 29, 20196 yr by candide

5 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

he released the transcript of his call.....you didn't expose any of this information.

take a chill pill....

He did not, he released a redacted transcript.

9 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

You make good points Darkside but when you say "You seem to be missing the fact that the whole of the EU, and many in the US, not just Mr. Biden were trying to get the prosecutor fired, because he was notoriously corrupt." it doesn't really matter that many others wanted the prosecutor fired. What matters is that Biden (while VP) was restricting funds until it happened. He said it and it's on tape/video. That would constitute Quid Pro Quo(a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something). 

And you miss the most important part. Which political rival did biden ask to be investigated.

8 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

I didn't watch the hearings on Fox News.  I watched them all, every minute of them and it was on C-Span.  What was told "under oath" by Trump's friend ... oh wait, is he Trump's friend?  Who told you that?  Trump says he is not, but no matter. 

 

Exactly what was told under oath.  Remember, I watched it all. 

He donated a million dollars to trump campaign. They are well known to each other. Trump appointed him.

36 minutes ago, Sujo said:

And you miss the most important part. Which political rival did biden ask to be investigated.

No the most important part is that Biden is guilty of (and he admitted to it when he made the statement on camera while on a stage looking all arrogant) Quid Pro Quo. Why anyone thinks he shouldn't be investigated is bizarre.

15 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

No the most important part is that Biden is guilty of (and he admitted to it when he made the statement on camera while on a stage looking all arrogant) Quid Pro Quo. Why anyone thinks he shouldn't be investigated is bizarre.

What are you talking about.

 

Trump is being investigated because he witheld aid to get a political rival investigated. He us not being investigated simply for witholding aid. Its the political rival part.

 

By all means investigate biden. But it must be done through proper chanels. Even so, what biden did is irrelevant to the trump investigation.

 

It doesnt surprise me this has to be repeatedly explained to trump fans. They only know deflection.

3 hours ago, Sujo said:

And you miss the most important part. Which political rival did biden ask to be investigated.

 

They were all too busy like pigs at the trough, thinking their girl was going to easily be the next president, so they could continue their unsavoury activities in Ukraine

As a VP, using a country's aid package to bribe, extort, coerce and engage in QPQ

is a high crime and misdemeanour, if there ever was one. Trump is absolutely right

to shine some light on this. The "proper channels" are full of spies, moles and leakers who

are aghast that Hillary Clinton lost. And out to nail trump at any cost, even if it means making stuff

up or stating facts inaccurately.

Edited November 30, 20196 yr by JHolmesJr

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

They were all too busy like pigs at the trough, thinking their girl was going to easily be the next president, so they could continue their unsavoury activities in Ukraine

As a VP, using a country's aid package to bribe, extort, coerce and engage in QPQ

is a high crime and misdemeanour, if there ever was one. Trump is absolutely right

to shine some light on this. The "proper channels" are full of spies, moles and leakers who

are aghast that Hillary Clinton lost. And out to nail trump at any cost, even if it means making stuff

up or stating facts inaccurately.

Wrong, it is not a crime at all. Its actually done quite often.

 

what trump did was to ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival. Thats is all it is about.

 

what the bidens may have done is irrelevant.

 

4 hours ago, Sujo said:

What are you talking about.

 

Trump is being investigated because he witheld aid to get a political rival investigated. He us not being investigated simply for witholding aid. Its the political rival part.

 

By all means investigate biden. But it must be done through proper chanels. Even so, what biden did is irrelevant to the trump investigation.

 

It doesnt surprise me this has to be repeatedly explained to trump fans. They only know deflection.

The Bidens are part of this so called impeachment process. Now that it has been established that there was no quid pro quo, we need to know if the Bidens were guilty, and the publicly available evidence certainly suggest that. If they are guilty then Trump was more than justified in acting in the best interests of the United States by asking Ukraine to investigate. Thus Trump will be exonerated.

 

Looking through the forum, one can see that you have been told this many times, yet you still seem to deny it.

5 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

The Bidens are part of this so called impeachment process. Now that it has been established that there was no quid pro quo, we need to know if the Bidens were guilty, and the publicly available evidence certainly suggest that. If they are guilty then Trump was more than justified in acting in the best interests of the United States by asking Ukraine to investigate. Thus Trump will be exonerated.

 

Looking through the forum, one can see that you have been told this many times, yet you still seem to deny it.

 

It's impossible to get the never trumpers to see reason on anything.

5 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

The Bidens are part of this so called impeachment process. Now that it has been established that there was no quid pro quo, we need to know if the Bidens were guilty, and the publicly available evidence certainly suggest that. If they are guilty then Trump was more than justified in acting in the best interests of the United States by asking Ukraine to investigate. Thus Trump will be exonerated.

 

Looking through the forum, one can see that you have been told this many times, yet you still seem to deny it.

Wrong. A president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival. QED.

 

There are ways to investigate bidens, trump chose the wrong way.

 

Funny how trump defenders have changed from, he didnt do it to he was right to do it.

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

It's impossible to get the never trumpers to see reason on anything.

Yeah those pesky facts just keep getting in the way.

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Wrong. A president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival. QED.

 

There are ways to investigate bidens, trump chose the wrong way.

No law gives a politician or family special immunity when running for office. Thus the president can ask a foreign government to investigate potential wrongdoing on foreign soil. He must because the US has no special jurisdiction on that foreign soil.

 

Even when involving executive branch resources to interface with Ukraine, Trump must first call the Ukraine head of state to ask permission. If said resources under Trump were to call their Ukraine counterparts first, their counterpart would ask the Ukraine president who would then call Trump.

 

Quod Erat Circus.

 

Finally, anyone who receives millions of dollars from a foreign corrupt entity for doing absolutely nothing is suspect. QED

 

Edited November 30, 20196 yr by rabas

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Yeah those pesky facts just keep getting in the way.

This is not the first time you have gone down this road. Please allow some clarification using the google dictionary to show where your error has been made repeatedly.

 

Assumption - a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF.

 

Presumption - an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT KNOWN FOR CERTAIN.

 

Fact - a thing that is known or PROVED TO BE TRUE.

 

 So all Taylor, Sondland, Kent, Hill and the rest of the pouting civil servants that had their noses put out of joint admit they only had the first 2. Assumptions and presumptions. None of them said they had for a fact knowledge that Trump was extorting the Ukraine to investigate Biden''s corruption in return for aid money. None.

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Wrong. A president cannot ask a foreign govt to investigate a political rival. QED.

 

You say you have legal experience but I think you're full of it.

Lawyers understand a little latin because juristic terms feature them quite a lot.

QED stands for quod erat demonstrandum....."that which was to be demonstrated".

Usually appears after mathematical equations/theorems that have been solved/proved.

 

I don't know what it means at the end of your sentence since nothing has been proved except

Biden's own public confession to shaking down Ukraine to get a prosecutor who displeased him

fired.

 

I suspect your entire view of this case, along with your latin, is on shaky ground.

 

QED.

 

 

24 minutes ago, rabas said:

No law gives a politician or family special immunity when running for office. Thus the president can ask a foreign government to investigate potential wrongdoing on foreign soil. He must because the US has no special jurisdiction on that foreign soil.

 

Even when involving executive branch resources to interface with Ukraine, Trump must first call the Ukraine head of state to ask permission. If said resources under Trump were to call their Ukraine counterparts first, their counterpart would ask the Ukraine president who would then call Trump.

 

Quod Erat Circus.

 

Finally, anyone who receives millions of dollars from a foreign corrupt entity for doing absolutely nothing is suspect. QED

 

No. He needs to ask the DOJ to start an investigation as he did, for example, in order to investigate the origin of the Mueller probe.

Additionally, according to the collaboration treaty with Ukraine, once an official investigation has been started in the US, there is a very precise procedure to follow by the DOJ. The argument also does not make sense: even in case the permission of the Ukrainian president would be required, he would not do it without knowing the legal details as required by the treaty.

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

8 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

This is not the first time you have gone down this road. Please allow some clarification using the google dictionary to show where your error has been made repeatedly.

 

Assumption - a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, WITHOUT PROOF.

 

Presumption - an idea that is taken to be true, and often used as the basis for other ideas, ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT KNOWN FOR CERTAIN.

 

Fact - a thing that is known or PROVED TO BE TRUE.

 

 So all Taylor, Sondland, Kent, Hill and the rest of the pouting civil servants that had their noses put out of joint admit they only had the first 2. Assumptions and presumptions. None of them said they had for a fact knowledge that Trump was extorting the Ukraine to investigate Biden''s corruption in return for aid money. None.

They made these testimonies under oath and they all corroborate it, and they are also in coherence with documents, phone message, dates, etc..

Did anyone testify the contrary under oath?

1 minute ago, candide said:

Did anyone testify the contrary under oath?

All the important witnesses were denied by the chairman in this ridiculous hoax and sham hearing. Real witnesses such as Biden sr, Biden jr, the democrat activist they tried calling a whistleblower, Adam Schiff himself et al were not allowed to be grilled. We must wait for the senate hearings for them to be dragged up to finally tell the truth. It will be priceless!

 

3 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

All the important witnesses were denied by the chairman in this ridiculous hoax and sham hearing. Real witnesses such as Biden sr, Biden jr, the democrat activist they tried calling a whistleblower, Adam Schiff himself et al were not allowed to be grilled. We must wait for the senate hearings for them to be dragged up to finally tell the truth. It will be priceless!

 

Come on, it's a joke! The GOP minority only called in:

- people who have nothing to testify, such ast the Bidens who have nothing to say about what Trump did or not. It was just a diversion

- the WB who is allowed by law to remain anonymous and proposed to answer written questions. They did not send any written questions

- real witnesses such as Volker who had already been called in by the Dems.

 

So why didn't they call in "important witnesses", such as Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani and others?

23 minutes ago, candide said:

They made these testimonies under oath and they all corroborate it, and they are also in coherence with documents, phone message, dates, etc..

Did anyone testify the contrary under oath?

 

Not testimonies.....presumptions and outlandish claims of being able to hear private mobile phone conversations 

that were not on speakerphone. Possibly giving Marvel an idea for a new superhero The Bionic Ear.

3 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

<snip>

Now that it has been established that there was no quid pro quo,

<snip>

Have you not heard from over a dozen witnesses, some of them first hand and some of them Trump's own administration, that there WAS a quid pro quo?

21 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Not testimonies.....presumptions and outlandish claims of being able to hear private mobile phone conversations 

that were not on speakerphone. Possibly giving Marvel an idea for a new superhero The Bionic Ear.

No. These WERE testimonies, under oath, and to say otherwise is to deny facts.

42 minutes ago, TopDeadSenter said:

All the important witnesses were denied by the chairman in this ridiculous hoax and sham hearing. Real witnesses such as Biden sr, Biden jr, the democrat activist they tried calling a whistleblower, Adam Schiff himself et al were not allowed to be grilled. We must wait for the senate hearings for them to be dragged up to finally tell the truth. It will be priceless!

 

The only one denying actual witnesses with firsthand information is Trump.

59 minutes ago, candide said:

No. He needs to ask the DOJ to start an investigation as he did, for example, in order to investigate the origin of the Mueller probe.

Additionally, according to the collaboration treaty with Ukraine, once an official investigation has been started in the US, there is a very precise procedure to follow by the DOJ. The argument also does not make sense: even in case the permission of the Ukrainian president would be required, he would not do it without knowing the legal details as required by the treaty.

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

I do beg to differ. Article 2 of the treaty designates a central authority to make and receive requests to implement formal criminal investigations, which for the US is the attorney general. A lot of groundwork would come before such a request.

 

As CEO and the AG's direct boss, Trump may well discuss and agree on details of any important formal investigation with the other head of state prior to submission. That's their job. The idea they are not allowed to talk is just silly.

 

Anyway, the senate will get it all worked out if there is an impeachment.

 

 

Edited November 30, 20196 yr by rabas

I would be very surprised if there is one person in Washington that does not privately think  trump is guilty.

All the rest is simple noise from people trying to attain or maintain power.

 

5 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I would be very surprised if there is one person in Washington that does not privately think  trump is guilty.

All the rest is simple noise from people trying to attain or maintain power.

Republican Senators who have no intention of running again are confirming exactly what you are saying. They are exhausted of jumping from one lie to the next, attempting to defend the indefensible. They're having to choose between getting re-elected or telling the truth. You can't have both with this guy.