U.S. Senate rejects Democratic bid for documents in Trump impeachment trial

[candide]

33 minutes ago, Chiphigh said:

What makes you think that they aren't being investigated? Then you rattle on about "Trumper" like a school boy. 

 

It’s unbelievable that you are concerned about election interference from one side of the equation while ignoring the obvious tactics used by the dnc and the previous administration. 

 

This whole charade is going to backfire on the left. You can keep up with the phony Russian narrative all you want. 

Come on! If there were an official investigation, the Republicans would have used this argument already! The DOJ even publicly stated that there was no investigation. No one wants to start an investigation on the Bidens. 

 

Personally, I have no problem about any official investigation launched into anyone, Biden, Chalupa, etc... They are not protected by any status and can be investigated.

 

Now let's talk about Chalupa: she is criticized for having made contact with Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian embassy in the US. It happened in the US and so it is directly subject to US law. There's no need for Ukraine to start an investigation.

[candide]

34 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

First its a question in the way I posed it, and on the face of it: a VP who is in charge of Ukraine policy during a time when Ukraine is increasing gas production, has a son, recently removed from a Naval commission for cocaine, placed on a board of a Ukrainian Energy company already known for corruption. This man has no Ukrainian, or Gas/oil experience, does not speak Ukrainian, or Russian, but was receiving 50 to 85K per month dependent on source. Unrelated is a similiar situation occurred in China. What here is ridiculous? Other then the obviousness way it looks bad even to the casual observer (The American public)

Personally I don't think It's fair that sons of well known people can benefit from such privilege, usually because It's good for public relations or public image. However, he's far from being the only one and that's not illegal.

 

By the way, it's interesting to notice that you are not arguing any more about the debunked theory that Biden asked Shokin to be fired because of an investigation that was put on hold and switched to another topic.

 

Now Let's follow your line of reasoning about Hunter. A company hires an American guy because of his connections, allegedly in order to conduct some illegal activities. If It's true, these illegal activities would likely occur in the US or in relation to US organisations, right? Burisma doesn't need any American for corrupt activities in Ukraine, right? In this case an investigation should first be started in the US as it would directly fall under US law. Again, if there is so much evidence of wrongdoing, why no investigation?

Edited January 24, 2020 by candide

[WalkingOrders]

2 hours ago, candide said:

Personally I don't think It's fair that sons of well known people can benefit from such privilege, usually because It's good for public relations or public image. However, he's far from being the only one and that's not illegal.

 

By the way, it's interesting to notice that you are not arguing any more about the debunked theory that Biden asked Shokin to be fired because of an investigation that was put on hold and switched to another topic.

 

Now Let's follow your line of reasoning about Hunter. A company hires an American guy because of his connections, allegedly in order to conduct some illegal activities. If It's true, these illegal activities would likely occur in the US or in relation to US organisations, right? Burisma doesn't need any American for corrupt activities in Ukraine, right? In this case an investigation should first be started in the US as it would directly fall under US law. Again, if there is so much evidence of wrongdoing, why no investigation?

I disagree with all of your hypotheticals, and your characterization. The questions that interests me is this: What was Hunter Biden's job? In other words WHY was he being paid? Was it simply for being the VP of the USA's son? And what was Burisma expecting in return for the millions that funneled through?

 

Did you read the story about the Diamond ring the Chinese gave to Hunter? That's a great story too. Look it up while your looking for A Hunter Biden defense. Honestly, I think the whole China thing is an even Bigger story then Burisma.

 

My other questions revolve around Rudy Giuliani, and the actual facts around what he claims to have found regarding Dem money in Ukraine. I am not sure if he has something that Barr now has, as well as the Trump Defense team, or if he had smoke blown up his rear, or himself is blowing smoke. A lot of negativity flies at this guy from the left, the old guy, half cocked, but he is no amateur prosecutor of organized crime. He is the real deal.

 

Like him or not. Were gonna soon find out, and I speculate no further...and no news reports...I trust none of them on this subject. 

[candide]

59 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

I disagree with all of your hypotheticals, and your characterization. The questions that interests me is this: What was Hunter Biden's job? In other words WHY was he being paid? Was it simply for being the VP of the USA's son? And what was Burisma expecting in return for the millions that funneled through?

 

Did you read the story about the Diamond ring the Chinese gave to Hunter? That's a great story too. Look it up while your looking for A Hunter Biden defense. Honestly, I think the whole China thing is an even Bigger story then Burisma.

 

My other questions revolve around Rudy Giuliani, and the actual facts around what he claims to have found regarding Dem money in Ukraine. I am not sure if he has something that Barr now has, as well as the Trump Defense team, or if he had smoke blown up his rear, or himself is blowing smoke. A lot of negativity flies at this guy from the left, the old guy, half cocked, but he is no amateur prosecutor of organized crime. He is the real deal.

 

Like him or not. Were gonna soon find out, and I speculate no further...and no news reports...I trust none of them on this subject. 

The fact that there are no official investigations into the Bidens is not an hypothesis.

 

From what I know they used him for public relations purpose because they had a (justified) corrupt image.

 

As I wrote several times, I personally have no problem in having Hunter or anyone investigated, as long it is an official investigation in accordance with the US law, and not a show to support a conspiracy theory from the alternate Trumpist universe.  Please send a petition to the DOJ about it. What the hell are they doing? Lol.

 

Anyway, It's not what Trump talked about, he talked about the story about the "very good prosecutor" and everybody knows It's been debunked. Same for the "Ukrainian" Crowdstrike stupidity.

 

As concerns Giuliani, Barr and others, let's have them testify under oath! Oh, sorry, Trump doesn't want that.... Why is it?

Edited January 24, 2020 by candide

[Sujo]

4 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

First its a question in the way I posed it, and on the face of it: a VP who is in charge of Ukraine policy during a time when Ukraine is increasing gas production, has a son, recently removed from a Naval commission for cocaine, placed on a board of a Ukrainian Energy company already known for corruption. This man has no Ukrainian, or Gas/oil experience, does not speak Ukrainian, or Russian, but was receiving 50 to 85K per month dependent on source. Unrelated is a similiar situation occurred in China. What here is ridiculous? Other then the obviousness way it looks bad even to the casual observer (The American public)

what here is ridiculous is that you think it is relevant to the charges against trump.

[WalkingOrders]

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

what here is ridiculous is that you think it is relevant to the charges against trump.

What kind of a comment is this? The Democrats just spent two days at imeachment trial talking about Burisma and Biden. Yeah its ridiculous, and the coming 3 days of the trial might also see the name Burisma and Biden come up again, again, and again.

[WalkingOrders]

9 hours ago, candide said:

The fact that there are no official investigations into the Bidens is not an hypothesis.

 

From what I know they used him for public relations purpose because they had a (justified) corrupt image.

 

As I wrote several times, I personally have no problem in having Hunter or anyone investigated, as long it is an official investigation in accordance with the US law, and not a show to support a conspiracy theory from the alternate Trumpist universe.  Please send a petition to the DOJ about it. What the hell are they doing? Lol.

 

Anyway, It's not what Trump talked about, he talked about the story about the "very good prosecutor" and everybody knows It's been debunked. Same for the "Ukrainian" Crowdstrike stupidity.

 

As concerns Giuliani, Barr and others, let's have them testify under oath! Oh, sorry, Trump doesn't want that.... Why is it?

Read the paragraph in the July 25th phonecall text. For sure, it seems that the President is not aware of the reality of the crowdstrike server (not a ukrainian co, spread across multiple machines, or virtual severs), as Mueller report had just been released he obviously has reason not to trust the FBI, or other intel agencies, the subsequent IG on FISA confirms his reasoning.

The President asking about crowdstrike seems to indicate he was acting out of an intent to defend the interests of the USA, and not self-interest. Regardless of how crazy the theory of the crowdstrike server is.

 

In the call the President also speaks in general phrases "Our Country has been through a lot", " and concerns about people that may be around Zelensky, "There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation".

 

So is it I that has to stretch to find concern for the United States, or does one have to stretch to declare a lack of concern?

 

As for witnesses, and testifying. For both sides there are concerns about a time element, and executive priviledge, the lack of it; or arguably the abuse of it; either way; is going to be decided by the supreme court. That results in delay. This is an important topic not only in this case but for future precedent.

 

Assuming that all the witnesses were to be called, neither you nor I know what would come from that testimony. 

 

Remember there are several lines of defense. The last one is this: So what! This does not rise to an impeachable offense, as the President was acting in accord with his Presidential powers.

[heybruce]

10 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

I disagree with all of your hypotheticals, and your characterization. The questions that interests me is this: What was Hunter Biden's job? In other words WHY was he being paid? Was it simply for being the VP of the USA's son? And what was Burisma expecting in return for the millions that funneled through?

 

Did you read the story about the Diamond ring the Chinese gave to Hunter? That's a great story too. Look it up while your looking for A Hunter Biden defense. Honestly, I think the whole China thing is an even Bigger story then Burisma.

 

My other questions revolve around Rudy Giuliani, and the actual facts around what he claims to have found regarding Dem money in Ukraine. I am not sure if he has something that Barr now has, as well as the Trump Defense team, or if he had smoke blown up his rear, or himself is blowing smoke. A lot of negativity flies at this guy from the left, the old guy, half cocked, but he is no amateur prosecutor of organized crime. He is the real deal.

 

Like him or not. Were gonna soon find out, and I speculate no further...and no news reports...I trust none of them on this subject. 

The question that interests me is why the only bank that would do business with Trump after his string of bankruptcies was one that is notorious for laundering Russian money.  Since this concerns the current President of the US you'd think that people who are concerned about corruption would want that one answered. 

 

Hunter Biden was hired because in corrupt countries it is standard practice to hire the relatives of important officials in an attempt to curry favor.  It speaks poorly of Hunter Biden that he took advantage of this.  However there is no evidence that Hunter did anything illegal or that Joe Biden did anything but implement US policy.  There was no crime committed by either of the Biden's.

 

However there was a crime committed by Trump.  He has shown no interest in any kind of corruption in Ukraine, or anywhere else.  He has shown interest in instigating an illegal investigation of a US citizen by a foreign power for the purpose of benefiting his election.  That is illegal and an abuse of power.

[WalkingOrders]

14 minutes ago, heybruce said:

The question that interests me is why the only bank that would do business with Trump after his string of bankruptcies was one that is notorious for laundering Russian money.  Since this concerns the current President of the US you'd think that people who are concerned about corruption would want that one answered. 

 

Hunter Biden was hired because in corrupt countries it is standard practice to hire the relatives of important officials in an attempt to curry favor.  It speaks poorly of Hunter Biden that he took advantage of this.  However there is no evidence that Hunter did anything illegal or that Joe Biden did anything but implement US policy.  There was no crime committed by either of the Biden's.

 

However there was a crime committed by Trump.  He has shown no interest in any kind of corruption in Ukraine, or anywhere else.  He has shown interest in instigating an illegal investigation of a US citizen by a foreign power for the purpose of benefiting his election.  That is illegal and an abuse of power.

My apologies, but I consider all of this nothing but nonsense. The first paragraph is completely off topic, not related to impeachment. Para 2 seems to justify the reason for Hunter's hiring is because it is local custom to be corrupt? Ok I will email Sekulow with that one. Para 3 claims Trump had no interest in corruption in Ukraine well that is the oft repeated televised Democrat defense restated. Illegal, and an impeachable offense, are two different things. Note: I disagree with the presumption of illegality. The President will not be removed, and sadly for some, he will be re-elected.

[metisdead]

A troll post has been removed. 

[heybruce]

57 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

My apologies, but I consider all of this nothing but nonsense. The first paragraph is completely off topic, not related to impeachment. Para 2 seems to justify the reason for Hunter's hiring is because it is local custom to be corrupt? Ok I will email Sekulow with that one. Para 3 claims Trump had no interest in corruption in Ukraine well that is the oft repeated televised Democrat defense restated. Illegal, and an impeachable offense, are two different things. Note: I disagree with the presumption of illegality. The President will not be removed, and sadly for some, he will be re-elected.

The first paragraph illustrates the hypocrisy of those who are concerned about the appearance of Hunter Biden working for a private Ukraine business, but not concerned with the appearance of our President using a bank known to engage in massive criminal activity because no clean bank would do business with him.

 

My second paragraph stated a simple, well known fact that explained the Hunter Biden hire.  It's not my concern if you find that fact insufficiently incriminating.

 

Soliciting foreign assistance in an election is definitely illegal, and Trump was clearly demanding it.  "do us a favor" in the context used is as clear as "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse". 

 

The House Democrats have made it very clear that the President is not above the law and can not solicit foreign interference in a US election.  If the Senate Republicans choose to send the opposite message it will bode poorly for the future of democracy in the US.

[Ricohoc]

33 minutes ago, heybruce said:

. . .

 

Soliciting foreign assistance in an election is definitely illegal, and Trump was clearly demanding it.  "do us a favor" in the context used is as clear as "I'm going to make you an offer you can't refuse". 

 

The House Democrats have made it very clear that the President is not above the law and can not solicit foreign interference in a US election.  If the Senate Republicans choose to send the opposite message it will bode poorly for the future of democracy in the US.

 

1. There was no clear demand for foreign assistance in an election.  You're making up context.  

 

2. House Democrats have only shown that Trump is below the law, not entitled to due process and not entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Like making up context in an attempt criminalize legal behavior.

[Sujo]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

What kind of a comment is this? The Democrats just spent two days at imeachment trial talking about Burisma and Biden. Yeah its ridiculous, and the coming 3 days of the trial might also see the name Burisma and Biden come up again, again, and again.

In a normal court the dems speak, repubs speak, then dems get a rebuttal. But that doesnt happen here, the dems dont get a rebuttal.

 

So a way to do it is to pre empt what repubs will say. We know they will not argue facts, they cant as the facts show his guilt. They will argue process, no enough for removal, bidens, all deflections.

 

So with no rebuttal for dems they have actually rebutted repub arguments in their opening.

 

You are correct the bidens will come up again, and no matter how many times it is still completely irrelevant to the charges against trump. The bidens could admit to murder and its still irrelevant.

[heybruce]

2 hours ago, Ricohoc said:

 

1. There was no clear demand for foreign assistance in an election.  You're making up context.  

 

2. House Democrats have only shown that Trump is below the law, not entitled to due process and not entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Like making up context in an attempt criminalize legal behavior.

The context is proven and clear; Trump withheld much needed aid and a Whitehouse meeting and made it clear there had to be a public announcement of an investigation into Biden.  That would have greatly assisted Trump in an election with Joe Biden as his opponent.

 

Trump can either be President and accept public scrutiny or he can be a private citizen and stop abusing Executive Privilege.  He can't be President when it suits him then claim to be a private citizen when that works better for him.

[Chiphigh]

20 hours ago, candide said:

Come on! If there were an official investigation, the Republicans would have used this argument already! The DOJ even publicly stated that there was no investigation. No one wants to start an investigation on the Bidens. 

 

Personally, I have no problem about any official investigation launched into anyone, Biden, Chalupa, etc... They are not protected by any status and can be investigated.

 

Now let's talk about Chalupa: she is criticized for having made contact with Ukrainian officials at the Ukrainian embassy in the US. It happened in the US and so it is directly subject to US law. There's no need for Ukraine to start an investigation.

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

 

NY times reporter Ken Vogel was doing a story on this subject, but nothing was ever published. 

 

Telizhenko has also just released a new statement saying how we was pressured by chalupa and the state dept to dig up dirt on Trump. 

 

This is going to blow up in the faces of these idiots and it will be long overdue. 

 

The association to schiff staffer and the whistleblower is also been proven as well as the whistleblower talking to the schiff staffer in 2017 about how to impeach trump. 

 

So, let's summarize what the left will say, and the standard liberal torch bearers of this forum:

 

FOX News source is a lie so none of this ever happened. The dnc and the Obama administration have never interfered in any election. 

 

Despite having the emails and the Whitehouse visitor logs, this meeting to coordinate election interference never happened. 

 

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

 

NY times reporter Ken Vogel was doing a story on this subject, but nothing was ever published. 

 

Telizhenko has also just released a new statement saying how we was pressured by chalupa and the state dept to dig up dirt on Trump. 

 

This is going to blow up in the faces of these idiots and it will be long overdue. 

 

The association to schiff staffer and the whistleblower is also been proven as well as the whistleblower talking to the schiff staffer in 2017 about how to impeach trump. 

 

So, let's summarize what the left will say, and the standard liberal torch bearers of this forum:

 

FOX News source is a lie so none of this ever happened. The dnc and the Obama administration have never interfered in any election. 

 

Despite having the emails and the Whitehouse visitor logs, this meeting to coordinate election interference never happened. 

 

Just in:  A TV newbie makes bold claims without providing a link to a source.  Nobody believes him.

[Ricohoc]

3 hours ago, heybruce said:

The context is proven and clear; Trump withheld much needed aid and a Whitehouse meeting and made it clear there had to be a public announcement of an investigation into Biden.  That would have greatly assisted Trump in an election with Joe Biden as his opponent.

 

Trump can either be President and accept public scrutiny or he can be a private citizen and stop abusing Executive Privilege.  He can't be President when it suits him then claim to be a private citizen when that works better for him.

1.  The context is what is in the transcript.  Nothing more.  The context is not what others want to create and claim is proven.  According to those who spoke directly with the the POTUS, Trump withheld aid based on the election of the new president and to ensure that the new president was sincere in heading off corruption in Ukraine.  Trump never mentioned any public announcement on the part of the Ukraine of an investigation into Biden.  No such public announcement is mentioned in either of the two transcripts that were declassified and released, and the officials in the Ukraine have said there was no such condition placed upon them. Of the witnesses who testified in the House, only one -- Sondland -- had direct discussions with Trump regarding Ukraine aid.  Sondland testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing in return for the aid.  Sondland also stated that any ideas he had personally regarding quid pro quo regarding the aid was his own "presumption." 

 

2.  In Trump's case, there is no such evidence of abuse of executive privilege.  Trump didn't even claim executive privilege in the Mueller Investigation.  All witnesses, including Trump's attorney, were allowed to meet with Mueller's team.

 

3.  All presidents are citizens entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

 

 

[Ricohoc]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

 

NY times reporter Ken Vogel was doing a story on this subject, but nothing was ever published. 

 

Telizhenko has also just released a new statement saying how we was pressured by chalupa and the state dept to dig up dirt on Trump. 

 

. . . 

 

According to that same Ukrainian attendee, Telizhenko, Obama officials at the meeting brought up concern regarding perceptions of Biden and Burisma being linked.

 

Vogel goes silent.

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

According to that same Ukrainian attendee, Telizhenko, Obama officials at the meeting brought up concern regarding perceptions of Biden and Burisma being linked.

 

Vogel goes silent.

Oh shock horror. Do keep up. Ukraine investigated burisma and found nothing. Pres Z also stated hunter biden broke no law and a company can employ whoever it likes.

 

Now, perhaps you can ask for a thread on the bidens because again its irrelevant to the charges against trump.

[candide]

1 hour ago, Chiphigh said:

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

So what? The Obama administration complained several times that the Ukraine prosecutor's office was not helping in the cases concerning Burisma, so It's no surprise there were meetings about it.

Early February 2015, George Kent, who was then-senior anti-corruption coordinator in the State Department’s European Bureau...scolded” the deputy prosecutor for having “shut the criminal case” that had been the basis for a U.K. court freezing Zlochevsky’s assets, demanding, “Who took the bribe and how much was it?,” Kent asked. Kent’s effort was coordinated with the Justice Department,"

"Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma (Shokin, the "very good prosecutor" was the general prosecutor).....Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy"

By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to kyiv"

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

 

The rest of your post is the usual collection of stories from the Trumpist alternate universe.

[Sujo]

2 hours ago, Chiphigh said:

Just in, Laura Ingraham has obtained emails that show the whistlblower ERIC CIARMERELLA in a meeting in the white house in January 2016 meeting with Ukrainian andrii telizhenko and other Ukraine officials with Obama administration staff from the nsc, doj and state dept to request dirt on Trump and associates. 

 

NY times reporter Ken Vogel was doing a story on this subject, but nothing was ever published. 

 

Telizhenko has also just released a new statement saying how we was pressured by chalupa and the state dept to dig up dirt on Trump. 

 

This is going to blow up in the faces of these idiots and it will be long overdue. 

 

The association to schiff staffer and the whistleblower is also been proven as well as the whistleblower talking to the schiff staffer in 2017 about how to impeach trump. 

 

So, let's summarize what the left will say, and the standard liberal torch bearers of this forum:

 

FOX News source is a lie so none of this ever happened. The dnc and the Obama administration have never interfered in any election. 

 

Despite having the emails and the Whitehouse visitor logs, this meeting to coordinate election interference never happened. 

 

You watch ingraham? No wonder you like alternative facts.

 

Now please explain what that has to do with trump. Go get an investigation going if u like.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Sujo

[candide]

12 minutes ago, Ricohoc said:

1.  The context is what is in the transcript.  Nothing more.  The context is not what others want to create and claim is proven.  According to those who spoke directly with the the POTUS, Trump withheld aid based on the election of the new president and to ensure that the new president was sincere in heading off corruption in Ukraine.  Trump never mentioned any public announcement on the part of the Ukraine of an investigation into Biden.  No such public announcement is mentioned in either of the two transcripts that were declassified and released, and the officials in the Ukraine have said there was no such condition placed upon them. Of the witnesses who testified in the House, only one -- Sondland -- had direct discussions with Trump regarding Ukraine aid.  Sondland testified that Trump told him he wanted nothing in return for the aid.  Sondland also stated that any ideas he had personally regarding quid pro quo regarding the aid was his own "presumption." 

 

2.  In Trump's case, there is no such evidence of abuse of executive privilege.  Trump didn't even claim executive privilege in the Mueller Investigation.  All witnesses, including Trump's attorney, were allowed to meet with Mueller's team.

 

3.  All presidents are citizens entitled to the same rights as any other citizen.

 

 

The context is what witnesses have testified under oath, the messages collected, etc.. You cannot just conviently discard them because you don't like what they show.

[candide]

9 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Read the paragraph in the July 25th phonecall text. For sure, it seems that the President is not aware of the reality of the crowdstrike server (not a ukrainian co, spread across multiple machines, or virtual severs), as Mueller report had just been released he obviously has reason not to trust the FBI, or other intel agencies, the subsequent IG on FISA confirms his reasoning.

The President asking about crowdstrike seems to indicate he was acting out of an intent to defend the interests of the USA, and not self-interest. Regardless of how crazy the theory of the crowdstrike server is.

 

In the call the President also speaks in general phrases "Our Country has been through a lot", " and concerns about people that may be around Zelensky, "There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation".

 

So is it I that has to stretch to find concern for the United States, or does one have to stretch to declare a lack of concern?

 

As for witnesses, and testifying. For both sides there are concerns about a time element, and executive priviledge, the lack of it; or arguably the abuse of it; either way; is going to be decided by the supreme court. That results in delay. This is an important topic not only in this case but for future precedent.

 

Assuming that all the witnesses were to be called, neither you nor I know what would come from that testimony. 

 

Remember there are several lines of defense. The last one is this: So what! This does not rise to an impeachable offense, as the President was acting in accord with his Presidential powers.

Are you serious? So the President is not able to get publicly available information? He's even not able to ask his staff: "get me information on this <deleted> company Crowdstrike, Putin says It's a Ukrainian company" and his staff is not able to do a quick search on the Internet to check it is an American company, that the TOP committee also uses them, etc... Is his staff is also unable to explain to him what cloud computing is?

 

About testimonies, we may not know what would come from testimonies, but I bet that Trump and the Republicans have some clear idea of why they Don't want witnesses.

Edited January 25, 2020 by candide

[i84teen]

On 1/24/2020 at 10:57 AM, candide said:

Personally I don't think It's fair that sons of well known people can benefit from such privilege, usually because It's good for public relations or public image. However, he's far from being the only one and that's not illegal.

 

By the way, it's interesting to notice that you are not arguing any more about the debunked theory that Biden asked Shokin to be fired because of an investigation that was put on hold and switched to another topic.

 

Now Let's follow your line of reasoning about Hunter. A company hires an American guy because of his connections, allegedly in order to conduct some illegal activities. If It's true, these illegal activities would likely occur in the US or in relation to US organisations, right? Burisma doesn't need any American for corrupt activities in Ukraine, right? In this case an investigation should first be started in the US as it would directly fall under US law. Again, if there is so much evidence of wrongdoing, why no investigation?

"Again, if there is so much evidence of wrongdoing, why no investigation?"

 

Because Biden is protected due to his status as a member of the "democratic establishment". This the state of politics at a macro level in America.

 

Imagine for a moment if it was Donald Trump Jr. on the Burisma's board and payroll--INSTEAD of H Biden!

 

Imagine the ensuing poo-storm, whoa!

[candide]

4 minutes ago, i84teen said:

"Again, if there is so much evidence of wrongdoing, why no investigation?"

 

Because Biden is protected due to his status as a member of the "democratic establishment". This the state of politics at a macro level in America.

 

Imagine for a moment if it was Donald Trump Jr. on the Burisma's board and payroll--INSTEAD of H Biden!

 

Imagine the ensuing poo-storm, whoa!

Nonsense, the Republican own the DOJ, etc... The house has been Republican for years and could have started an investigation too, the Senate is currently Republican.

 

By the way, your Democratic establishment seems to be particularly powerless as it has been unable to prevent dozens of investigations into Clinton and Obama. ????

[i84teen]

18 minutes ago, candide said:

Nonsense, the Republican own the DOJ, etc... The house has been Republican for years and could have started an investigation too, the Senate is currently Republican.

 

By the way, your Democratic establishment seems to be particularly powerless as it has been unable to prevent dozens of investigations into Clinton and Obama. ????

Well, in the case of Biden, IF loony-tunes Guliani has what he says he has, the establishment might get nuked soon.

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by i84teen

[candide]

22 minutes ago, i84teen said:

Well, in the case of Biden, IF loony-tunes Guliani has what he says he has, the establishment might get nuked soon.

 

Then Let's have him testify under oath.

[WalkingOrders]

8 hours ago, Sujo said:

In a normal court the dems speak, repubs speak, then dems get a rebuttal. But that doesnt happen here, the dems dont get a rebuttal.

 

So a way to do it is to pre empt what repubs will say. We know they will not argue facts, they cant as the facts show his guilt. They will argue process, no enough for removal, bidens, all deflections.

 

So with no rebuttal for dems they have actually rebutted repub arguments in their opening.

 

You are correct the bidens will come up again, and no matter how many times it is still completely irrelevant to the charges against trump. The bidens could admit to murder and its still irrelevant.

I appreciate your love of the Bidens and disdain for Trump, but I thought the Democrats are acusing Trump of abusing power by asking a foreign Nation to interfere in the 2020 election by investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma, among other things. A defense to that is that trump was acting in the interest of the USA by investigating corruption of someone who by coincidence happens to be son of his opponent who was the VP, and by coincidence happened to be on the board of an oil and gas company coincidentally as his Father was point man on Ukraine policy, which coincidentally was aimed at increasing Ukraine gas production, and by coincidence was receiving monthly checks, and by coincidence when said Company was being investigated, the then VP Daddy demanded his firing or he would withold Billions in the name of then President Obama, but has nothing to do with an impeachment in which ... ah its getting too ridiculous to go on....

[Ricohoc]

3 hours ago, candide said:

The context is what witnesses have testified under oath, the messages collected, etc.. You cannot just conviently discard them because you don't like what they show.

 

All hearsay.  None of those witnesses were witnesses to anything other than their own feelings or some other bureaucrat repeating something to them.  Better called gossipers.

 

The only firsthand witness who had a conversation with Trump was Sondland.  He already admitted that his ideas of quid pro quo were his own "presumptions."  

[candide]

1 minute ago, Ricohoc said:

 

All hearsay.  None of those witnesses were witnesses to anything other than their own feelings or some other bureaucrat repeating something to them.  Better called gossipers.

 

The only firsthand witness who had a conversation with Trump was Sondland.  He already admitted that his ideas of quid pro quo were his own "presumptions."  

A set of converging testimonies and written evidence which has been confirmed by each new information and has remained uncontested.