McConnell opens door for Hunter Biden testimony at Trump trial...oh shit, can we say Arkancide?

[colfax_m]

I used to think that, but then I realized, whatever the bidens were up to, if found to be corrupt, would be pivotal to showing trump's motive.

Without the bidens testimony, the left can continue saying it was for personal gain to trump, but if the bidens are indeed found to have been up to something shady there, then it puts a new light on why trump did what he did.

_______

This is a completely reasonable post. Well said.

The tape of Biden bragging on having gotten the Attorney General (Prosecutor) fired is a clear quid pro pro.

Since the Prosecutor was investigating Hunter's corrupt company, it clearly puts the burden on Biden (Joe, not Hunter) to show why it wasn't Illegal.

This has not even been attempted. All we get is totally unsupported claims that this has been debunked---but never anything which actually "debunks" it...and some vague references that other countries thought the Prosecutor was corrupt. But the countries are ever identified, let alone anything Quoting these countries as saying "Joe, fire that Prosecutor, he's corrupt."

The burden is on JOE BIDEN to show why his admitted quid pro quo was NOT to protect his corrupt son's bogus gravy train.

We are waiting.

The claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma is completely unsupported. In fact, the State Dept at the time explicitly felt that the Prosecutor General was allowing his prosecutors to extort oligarchs to stop investigations which is why there was no corruption prosecutions from his tenure.

The embassy staff in Ukraine were pushing for Shokin’s firing before Biden even got involved.

If Biden was pushing for Shokin’s firing to protect Hunter, why was everyone else in the embassy pushing for it?

______

Bull Shit, you brainwashed Dumb-Ass. Shokin himself has signed an Affidavit under oath that such is exactly what he was doing!

Where are your affidavits that he was not?

And Fuck what "the State department at the time" supposedly said. You can produce what they supposedly said---and most of the country wouldn't believe the liars in the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department anyway.

Same for the Embassy---Obama Crooks---the same ones now trying to frame Trump. The women was FIRED for her actions?! Now, you quote her as fact---FOOL!

)))_____

Oh, Shokin said it? You know that the little affidavit he filed “under oath” had no penalty if he’s lying. How come he can’t explain why he couldn’t prosecute anyone for corruption in one of the most corrupt countries?

People at the State Dept testified under oath that they were pushing for Shokin’s firing. They’re on record in 2015 and 2016 pushing for it.

You’re sucking up lies pushed by corrupt people because you want to believe them. They’re doing that on purpose because it makes you very easy to manipulate.

_______

"You’re sucking up lies pushed by corrupt people because you want to believe them."


And you are doing exactly the same thing.

Trouble is: We have Biden on TAPE admitting to the Shakedown and the Quid Pro Quo---bragging on it---and it takes way way more than Bullshit on both sides to refute that.

It takes a FULL INVESTIGATION and that has not occurred.

What lies have I been sucking up exactly?

 

[rightwinger]

Are Republicans going to ask Ukraine for the DNC Server too?

As a special “favor”

 

[ThisIsMe]

It Joe Biden we need to hear from.

He admitted to shaking down the Ukrainian Gov't to get their Attorney General, called Prosecutor there----FIRED.

Clearest quid pro quo ever---Admitted to.

Did he do it to get them off his son's company. Certainly looks like it---a crime while serving as our Vice-President.

And the Executive Branch was well justified in asking the Ukrainian Gov't to look into it. Now that Ukraine and corruption is front and center in the Senate---let them look into it.

Call Uncle Joe!

Why hasn’t the Senate started an investigation into Joe Biden? Why shoehorn it into the impeachment trial? Makes no sense.

I used to think that, but then I realized, whatever the bidens were up to, if found to be corrupt, would be pivotal to showing trump's motive.

Without the bidens testimony, the left can continue saying it was for personal gain to trump, but if the bidens are indeed found to have been up to something shady there, then it puts a new light on why trump did what he did.

There is corruption galore in a lot of different countries we deal with (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Mexico, etc.) But Trump cares enough about it in this single instance to endanger his presidency against the warnings of his advisors? His motives are clear.

But we aren't talking about corruption BY other countries, we are talking about a couple of americans who potentially had corrupt dealings in ukraine.

Even I can admit, it does look fishy, absolutely, but you have to ask, why just biden? Why hasnt he tried to ask for dirt on anyone else? Sure, maybe he thought biden was his biggest rival, but surely he must have also been thinking that sanders and warren would have been tough competitors.

_____

Damn man, this is a red herring. This is a refusal to look facts in the face.

Trump (and America) don't have TAPE of the Vice-President admitting to a clean successful shakedown of a foreign government over a thing which is none of his business---their internal affairs. We don't have that on others you bring up as Red Herrings.

But, he has Biden nailed DEAD COLD---through his own admission and he has a duty as chief executive officer to investigate.

And you are saying "why not others" on which we don't have any such admission as Uncle Joe, in his senility---was stupid enough to give us. Do you not see how foolish you look? How biased?

____

It's a bit muddy actually. I wont go as far as to say biden didnt have a point. In reading of some news articles, it seems there was some consensus among even the citizens of ukraine that they wanted shokin out.

Having said that, bidens decision to get shokin fired didnt happen on the day he was in ukraine. There are some articles showing that biden had been pressuring ukraine to fire shokin for months.

Also, it does look very suspicious that burisma was shoveling cash into rosemount Seneca, hunters firm.

Again, this whole situation is not as clear cut as people think. There are some very weird twists to this story, with all the ties between burisma, Ukraine, the bidens, and even the Clinton's.

 

[MACAULAY]

Why hasn’t the Senate started an investigation into Joe Biden? Why shoehorn it into the impeachment trial? Makes no sense.

I used to think that, but then I realized, whatever the bidens were up to, if found to be corrupt, would be pivotal to showing trump's motive.

Without the bidens testimony, the left can continue saying it was for personal gain to trump, but if the bidens are indeed found to have been up to something shady there, then it puts a new light on why trump did what he did.

There is corruption galore in a lot of different countries we deal with (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Mexico, etc.) But Trump cares enough about it in this single instance to endanger his presidency against the warnings of his advisors? His motives are clear.

But we aren't talking about corruption BY other countries, we are talking about a couple of americans who potentially had corrupt dealings in ukraine.

Even I can admit, it does look fishy, absolutely, but you have to ask, why just biden? Why hasnt he tried to ask for dirt on anyone else? Sure, maybe he thought biden was his biggest rival, but surely he must have also been thinking that sanders and warren would have been tough competitors.

_____

Damn man, this is a red herring. This is a refusal to look facts in the face.

Trump (and America) don't have TAPE of the Vice-President admitting to a clean successful shakedown of a foreign government over a thing which is none of his business---their internal affairs. We don't have that on others you bring up as Red Herrings.

But, he has Biden nailed DEAD COLD---through his own admission and he has a duty as chief executive officer to investigate.

And you are saying "why not others" on which we don't have any such admission as Uncle Joe, in his senility---was stupid enough to give us. Do you not see how foolish you look? How biased?

____

Trump has a duty to investigate now? How come he had to coerce a foreign government to do his dirty work when he has the DoJ at his disposal?

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

 

[colfax_m]

I used to think that, but then I realized, whatever the bidens were up to, if found to be corrupt, would be pivotal to showing trump's motive.

Without the bidens testimony, the left can continue saying it was for personal gain to trump, but if the bidens are indeed found to have been up to something shady there, then it puts a new light on why trump did what he did.

There is corruption galore in a lot of different countries we deal with (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Mexico, etc.) But Trump cares enough about it in this single instance to endanger his presidency against the warnings of his advisors? His motives are clear.

But we aren't talking about corruption BY other countries, we are talking about a couple of americans who potentially had corrupt dealings in ukraine.

Even I can admit, it does look fishy, absolutely, but you have to ask, why just biden? Why hasnt he tried to ask for dirt on anyone else? Sure, maybe he thought biden was his biggest rival, but surely he must have also been thinking that sanders and warren would have been tough competitors.

_____

Damn man, this is a red herring. This is a refusal to look facts in the face.

Trump (and America) don't have TAPE of the Vice-President admitting to a clean successful shakedown of a foreign government over a thing which is none of his business---their internal affairs. We don't have that on others you bring up as Red Herrings.

But, he has Biden nailed DEAD COLD---through his own admission and he has a duty as chief executive officer to investigate.

And you are saying "why not others" on which we don't have any such admission as Uncle Joe, in his senility---was stupid enough to give us. Do you not see how foolish you look? How biased?

____

Trump has a duty to investigate now? How come he had to coerce a foreign government to do his dirty work when he has the DoJ at his disposal?

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

There is corruption galore in a lot of different countries we deal with (Saudi Arabia, Israel, Mexico, etc.) But Trump cares enough about it in this single instance to endanger his presidency against the warnings of his advisors? His motives are clear.

But we aren't talking about corruption BY other countries, we are talking about a couple of americans who potentially had corrupt dealings in ukraine.

Even I can admit, it does look fishy, absolutely, but you have to ask, why just biden? Why hasnt he tried to ask for dirt on anyone else? Sure, maybe he thought biden was his biggest rival, but surely he must have also been thinking that sanders and warren would have been tough competitors.

_____

Damn man, this is a red herring. This is a refusal to look facts in the face.

Trump (and America) don't have TAPE of the Vice-President admitting to a clean successful shakedown of a foreign government over a thing which is none of his business---their internal affairs. We don't have that on others you bring up as Red Herrings.

But, he has Biden nailed DEAD COLD---through his own admission and he has a duty as chief executive officer to investigate.

And you are saying "why not others" on which we don't have any such admission as Uncle Joe, in his senility---was stupid enough to give us. Do you not see how foolish you look? How biased?

____

Trump has a duty to investigate now? How come he had to coerce a foreign government to do his dirty work when he has the DoJ at his disposal?

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

 

[colfax_m]

But we aren't talking about corruption BY other countries, we are talking about a couple of americans who potentially had corrupt dealings in ukraine.

Even I can admit, it does look fishy, absolutely, but you have to ask, why just biden? Why hasnt he tried to ask for dirt on anyone else? Sure, maybe he thought biden was his biggest rival, but surely he must have also been thinking that sanders and warren would have been tough competitors.

_____

Damn man, this is a red herring. This is a refusal to look facts in the face.

Trump (and America) don't have TAPE of the Vice-President admitting to a clean successful shakedown of a foreign government over a thing which is none of his business---their internal affairs. We don't have that on others you bring up as Red Herrings.

But, he has Biden nailed DEAD COLD---through his own admission and he has a duty as chief executive officer to investigate.

And you are saying "why not others" on which we don't have any such admission as Uncle Joe, in his senility---was stupid enough to give us. Do you not see how foolish you look? How biased?

____

Trump has a duty to investigate now? How come he had to coerce a foreign government to do his dirty work when he has the DoJ at his disposal?

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

Trump was impeached well after this all went down. If Trump is using his personal attorney, then that proves he was pushing for the investigation for personal reasons.

Which makes this impeachable.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why hasn’t the Senate started an investigation into Joe Biden? Why shoehorn it into the impeachment trial? Makes no sense.

I used to think that, but then I realized, whatever the bidens were up to, if found to be corrupt, would be pivotal to showing trump's motive.

Without the bidens testimony, the left can continue saying it was for personal gain to trump, but if the bidens are indeed found to have been up to something shady there, then it puts a new light on why trump did what he did.

_______

This is a completely reasonable post. Well said.

The tape of Biden bragging on having gotten the Attorney General (Prosecutor) fired is a clear quid pro pro.

Since the Prosecutor was investigating Hunter's corrupt company, it clearly puts the burden on Biden (Joe, not Hunter) to show why it wasn't Illegal.

This has not even been attempted. All we get is totally unsupported claims that this has been debunked---but never anything which actually "debunks" it...and some vague references that other countries thought the Prosecutor was corrupt. But the countries are ever identified, let alone anything Quoting these countries as saying "Joe, fire that Prosecutor, he's corrupt."

The burden is on JOE BIDEN to show why his admitted quid pro quo was NOT to protect his corrupt son's bogus gravy train.

We are waiting.

The claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma is completely unsupported. In fact, the State Dept at the time explicitly felt that the Prosecutor General was allowing his prosecutors to extort oligarchs to stop investigations which is why there was no corruption prosecutions from his tenure.

The embassy staff in Ukraine were pushing for Shokin’s firing before Biden even got involved.

If Biden was pushing for Shokin’s firing to protect Hunter, why was everyone else in the embassy pushing for it?

______

Bull Shit, you brainwashed Dumb-Ass. Shokin himself has signed an Affidavit under oath that such is exactly what he was doing!

Where are your affidavits that he was not?

And Fuck what "the State department at the time" supposedly said. You can produce what they supposedly said---and most of the country wouldn't believe the liars in the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department anyway.

Same for the Embassy---Obama Crooks---the same ones now trying to frame Trump. The women was FIRED for her actions?! Now, you quote her as fact---FOOL!

)))_____

Oh, Shokin said it? You know that the little affidavit he filed “under oath” had no penalty if he’s lying. How come he can’t explain why he couldn’t prosecute anyone for corruption in one of the most corrupt countries?

People at the State Dept testified under oath that they were pushing for Shokin’s firing. They’re on record in 2015 and 2016 pushing for it.

You’re sucking up lies pushed by corrupt people because you want to believe them. They’re doing that on purpose because it makes you very easy to manipulate.

According to Shokin (on video) that's what he was doing. He was looking into money laundering of Hunter, and Burisma in general. His claim is that's why Joe had him fired.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

_____

Damn man, this is a red herring. This is a refusal to look facts in the face.

Trump (and America) don't have TAPE of the Vice-President admitting to a clean successful shakedown of a foreign government over a thing which is none of his business---their internal affairs. We don't have that on others you bring up as Red Herrings.

But, he has Biden nailed DEAD COLD---through his own admission and he has a duty as chief executive officer to investigate.

And you are saying "why not others" on which we don't have any such admission as Uncle Joe, in his senility---was stupid enough to give us. Do you not see how foolish you look? How biased?

____

Trump has a duty to investigate now? How come he had to coerce a foreign government to do his dirty work when he has the DoJ at his disposal?

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

Trump was impeached well after this all went down. If Trump is using his personal attorney, then that proves he was pushing for the investigation for personal reasons.

Which makes this impeachable.

What personal reasons? Joe was not his contender in July and isn't now. Nobody knows who Trump will be facing in the general election. And no, Rudy was in Ukraine long before the Trump impeachment. And we also have a Senate trial supposedly coming up soon. If Rudy does testify, he needs whatever evidence he gathers to prove his clients innocence.

 

[colfax_m]

I used to think that, but then I realized, whatever the bidens were up to, if found to be corrupt, would be pivotal to showing trump's motive.

Without the bidens testimony, the left can continue saying it was for personal gain to trump, but if the bidens are indeed found to have been up to something shady there, then it puts a new light on why trump did what he did.

_______

This is a completely reasonable post. Well said.

The tape of Biden bragging on having gotten the Attorney General (Prosecutor) fired is a clear quid pro pro.

Since the Prosecutor was investigating Hunter's corrupt company, it clearly puts the burden on Biden (Joe, not Hunter) to show why it wasn't Illegal.

This has not even been attempted. All we get is totally unsupported claims that this has been debunked---but never anything which actually "debunks" it...and some vague references that other countries thought the Prosecutor was corrupt. But the countries are ever identified, let alone anything Quoting these countries as saying "Joe, fire that Prosecutor, he's corrupt."

The burden is on JOE BIDEN to show why his admitted quid pro quo was NOT to protect his corrupt son's bogus gravy train.

We are waiting.

The claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma is completely unsupported. In fact, the State Dept at the time explicitly felt that the Prosecutor General was allowing his prosecutors to extort oligarchs to stop investigations which is why there was no corruption prosecutions from his tenure.

The embassy staff in Ukraine were pushing for Shokin’s firing before Biden even got involved.

If Biden was pushing for Shokin’s firing to protect Hunter, why was everyone else in the embassy pushing for it?

______

Bull Shit, you brainwashed Dumb-Ass. Shokin himself has signed an Affidavit under oath that such is exactly what he was doing!

Where are your affidavits that he was not?

And Fuck what "the State department at the time" supposedly said. You can produce what they supposedly said---and most of the country wouldn't believe the liars in the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department anyway.

Same for the Embassy---Obama Crooks---the same ones now trying to frame Trump. The women was FIRED for her actions?! Now, you quote her as fact---FOOL!

)))_____

Oh, Shokin said it? You know that the little affidavit he filed “under oath” had no penalty if he’s lying. How come he can’t explain why he couldn’t prosecute anyone for corruption in one of the most corrupt countries?

People at the State Dept testified under oath that they were pushing for Shokin’s firing. They’re on record in 2015 and 2016 pushing for it.

You’re sucking up lies pushed by corrupt people because you want to believe them. They’re doing that on purpose because it makes you very easy to manipulate.

According to Shokin (on video) that's what he was doing. He was looking into money laundering of Hunter, and Burisma in general. His claim is that's why Joe had him fired.

Shokin just happened to remember this little fact like 4 years later and has no evidence to prove it and no corroborating witnesses? Don't be so gullible.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump has a duty to investigate now? How come he had to coerce a foreign government to do his dirty work when he has the DoJ at his disposal?

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

Trump was impeached well after this all went down. If Trump is using his personal attorney, then that proves he was pushing for the investigation for personal reasons.

Which makes this impeachable.

What personal reasons? Joe was not his contender in July and isn't now. Nobody knows who Trump will be facing in the general election. And no, Rudy was in Ukraine long before the Trump impeachment. And we also have a Senate trial supposedly coming up soon. If Rudy does testify, he needs whatever evidence he gathers to prove his clients innocence.

Trump is running campaign ads against Biden. If Trump doesn't consider him a campaign adversary, he's in violation of campaign finance laws.

There is no evidence that Rudy can gather in Ukraine at this time which proves Trump's innocence. That's not how cause and effect works.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

_______

This is a completely reasonable post. Well said.

The tape of Biden bragging on having gotten the Attorney General (Prosecutor) fired is a clear quid pro pro.

Since the Prosecutor was investigating Hunter's corrupt company, it clearly puts the burden on Biden (Joe, not Hunter) to show why it wasn't Illegal.

This has not even been attempted. All we get is totally unsupported claims that this has been debunked---but never anything which actually "debunks" it...and some vague references that other countries thought the Prosecutor was corrupt. But the countries are ever identified, let alone anything Quoting these countries as saying "Joe, fire that Prosecutor, he's corrupt."

The burden is on JOE BIDEN to show why his admitted quid pro quo was NOT to protect his corrupt son's bogus gravy train.

We are waiting.

The claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma is completely unsupported. In fact, the State Dept at the time explicitly felt that the Prosecutor General was allowing his prosecutors to extort oligarchs to stop investigations which is why there was no corruption prosecutions from his tenure.

The embassy staff in Ukraine were pushing for Shokin’s firing before Biden even got involved.

If Biden was pushing for Shokin’s firing to protect Hunter, why was everyone else in the embassy pushing for it?

______

Bull Shit, you brainwashed Dumb-Ass. Shokin himself has signed an Affidavit under oath that such is exactly what he was doing!

Where are your affidavits that he was not?

And Fuck what "the State department at the time" supposedly said. You can produce what they supposedly said---and most of the country wouldn't believe the liars in the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department anyway.

Same for the Embassy---Obama Crooks---the same ones now trying to frame Trump. The women was FIRED for her actions?! Now, you quote her as fact---FOOL!

)))_____

Oh, Shokin said it? You know that the little affidavit he filed “under oath” had no penalty if he’s lying. How come he can’t explain why he couldn’t prosecute anyone for corruption in one of the most corrupt countries?

People at the State Dept testified under oath that they were pushing for Shokin’s firing. They’re on record in 2015 and 2016 pushing for it.

You’re sucking up lies pushed by corrupt people because you want to believe them. They’re doing that on purpose because it makes you very easy to manipulate.

According to Shokin (on video) that's what he was doing. He was looking into money laundering of Hunter, and Burisma in general. His claim is that's why Joe had him fired.

Shokin just happened to remember this little fact like 4 years later and has no evidence to prove it and no corroborating witnesses? Don't be so gullible.

He knew it all along. It wasn't until he had a chance to be interviewed when he stated what happened. He has no dog in this race. Why would he be lying about something that wouldn't benefit him?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

______

Because Dumb-Ass, it is likely that much of the evidence is in Ukraine--and note that Trump asked them to work with Barr in the Attorney General's office.

Oh, I forgot, you don't trust our twice appointed Attorney General, but you do trust the Ukranian born U. S. ambassador appointed by Obama.

____

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

Trump was impeached well after this all went down. If Trump is using his personal attorney, then that proves he was pushing for the investigation for personal reasons.

Which makes this impeachable.

What personal reasons? Joe was not his contender in July and isn't now. Nobody knows who Trump will be facing in the general election. And no, Rudy was in Ukraine long before the Trump impeachment. And we also have a Senate trial supposedly coming up soon. If Rudy does testify, he needs whatever evidence he gathers to prove his clients innocence.

Trump is running campaign ads against Biden. If Trump doesn't consider him a campaign adversary, he's in violation of campaign finance laws.

There is no evidence that Rudy can gather in Ukraine at this time which proves Trump's innocence. That's not how cause and effect works.

What????? Rudy can't look into matters in another country to defend his client? Are you from this country? Do you understand our justice system at all?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not just Hunter Biden, but Ciaramella, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and any other defense witnesses who can testify to the deep state coup attempts against Trump from the day he announced he was running. Barr and Durham should have some idea what questions to ask which witness to unravel the sham impeachment, especially anyone involved with Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The Horowitz report can give you some idea where the damaging evidence is.
The democrats will regret insisting on witnesses. The democrat senators may miss the primaries unless Mitch allows a quick dismissal.

I doubt you get schiff as a witness. There almost 100% certainty he will be one of the managers the dems pick. I think this means he cant be called to testify, correct?

I have no clue if Schiff couldn't be called if he's a manager?? Why couldn't he? They have 3 or 4 other managers.
Schiff knows a lot about Ciaramella, and the various rules that he broke during the inquiry.

Just so you know, attacking the process is what obviously guilty mobsters do in an almost forlorn hope that a mistrial will be declared. They had better have a better plan than just trying to make the house democrats look bad. When this thing starts you will be astounded when Trump's defenders fail to even say anything about all that deep state bullshit they know cannot be backed up with evidence.

Funny you should mention "evidence".
Article-1 will be thrown out because there is only "hearsay" evidence. I'm sure Dershowitz can even prove that even if everything the democrats said about the phone call is true, that it is not an impeachable offense. "Abuse of power" by the president is NOT a crime, there is a legal remedy, and it's not impeachment.

Article-2 will be thrown out because the USSC took the Trump vs House subpoena for tax records. The USSC said that Trump does have the right to court, and that is NOT "obstruction of the House" which isn't even a thing. let alone impeachable.
Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

Only fools think they know how this is going to go. The only thing that is certain is when people are under oath the bullshit generally stops.

Correct, which is why I think the informant needs to testify. He has no protection of anonymity even if he was considered a whistleblower, therefore should not be a problem.

 

[colfax_m]

The claim that Shokin was investigating Burisma is completely unsupported. In fact, the State Dept at the time explicitly felt that the Prosecutor General was allowing his prosecutors to extort oligarchs to stop investigations which is why there was no corruption prosecutions from his tenure.

The embassy staff in Ukraine were pushing for Shokin’s firing before Biden even got involved.

If Biden was pushing for Shokin’s firing to protect Hunter, why was everyone else in the embassy pushing for it?

______

Bull Shit, you brainwashed Dumb-Ass. Shokin himself has signed an Affidavit under oath that such is exactly what he was doing!

Where are your affidavits that he was not?

And Fuck what "the State department at the time" supposedly said. You can produce what they supposedly said---and most of the country wouldn't believe the liars in the Obama/Clinton/Kerry State Department anyway.

Same for the Embassy---Obama Crooks---the same ones now trying to frame Trump. The women was FIRED for her actions?! Now, you quote her as fact---FOOL!

)))_____

Oh, Shokin said it? You know that the little affidavit he filed “under oath” had no penalty if he’s lying. How come he can’t explain why he couldn’t prosecute anyone for corruption in one of the most corrupt countries?

People at the State Dept testified under oath that they were pushing for Shokin’s firing. They’re on record in 2015 and 2016 pushing for it.

You’re sucking up lies pushed by corrupt people because you want to believe them. They’re doing that on purpose because it makes you very easy to manipulate.

According to Shokin (on video) that's what he was doing. He was looking into money laundering of Hunter, and Burisma in general. His claim is that's why Joe had him fired.

Shokin just happened to remember this little fact like 4 years later and has no evidence to prove it and no corroborating witnesses? Don't be so gullible.

He knew it all along. It wasn't until he had a chance to be interviewed when he stated what happened. He has no dog in this race. Why would he be lying about something that wouldn't benefit him?

Because the lie exonerates him. He was fired for being corrupt. The lie rewrites history that he was fired for being too virtuous.

Plus, there’s lots of shady behavior about Shokin’s recent involvement. He filed an affidavit in Dmytri Firtash’s legal case fighting extradition. Why? No idea. Its not terribly related. However, the affidavit is clearly beneficial to Trump and Firtash employs a number of Trump allies and probably was funneling money illegal into Trump supporting PACs. It’s just a little too coincidental.

 

[colfax_m]

No shit. You know what isn't in Ukraine? Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. If Trump wants them investigated, he has to go through our DoJ.

Guess who Trump forgot to tell about his little request for an investigation? That's right. The Attorney General. We know this because the DoJ spokesperson (who works for Barr) told us. Do you believe them now?

If Trump actually wanted an investigation, he would have gone through the AG, to request cooperation from the Ukrainian prosecutors. But he didn't do that. He had everyone working through his private lawyer, a man who doesn't have any government position. Has no legal authority. Has no accountability. And who was claiming publicly the whole time that he was operating solely on the personal interests of his client, Donald Trump. They'd admitted this has nothing to do with governance and everything to do with helping Trump.

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

Trump was impeached well after this all went down. If Trump is using his personal attorney, then that proves he was pushing for the investigation for personal reasons.

Which makes this impeachable.

What personal reasons? Joe was not his contender in July and isn't now. Nobody knows who Trump will be facing in the general election. And no, Rudy was in Ukraine long before the Trump impeachment. And we also have a Senate trial supposedly coming up soon. If Rudy does testify, he needs whatever evidence he gathers to prove his clients innocence.

Trump is running campaign ads against Biden. If Trump doesn't consider him a campaign adversary, he's in violation of campaign finance laws.

There is no evidence that Rudy can gather in Ukraine at this time which proves Trump's innocence. That's not how cause and effect works.

What????? Rudy can't look into matters in another country to defend his client? Are you from this country? Do you understand our justice system at all?

As you said, Rudy was in Ukraine working for Trump way before the impeachment. Trump’s use of his private lawyer demonstrates his ask to investigate Biden was for private benefit.

You can’t claim Rudy was in Ukraine to defend his client from charges that occurred subsequently.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What would they ask him?

"Why did you make Trumpybear demand a publicly announced investigation into the prior corruption of the Ukraine Company that hired you, before he would release the Congressional approve aid?

"Was this a set up from that StrikieCrowd Ukrainian company or somesuchshit?"

"Did your dad put you up to this son?"

Not just Hunter Biden, but Ciaramella, Brennan, Clapper, Schiff, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and any other defense witnesses who can testify to the deep state coup attempts against Trump from the day he announced he was running. Barr and Durham should have some idea what questions to ask which witness to unravel the sham impeachment, especially anyone involved with Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The Horowitz report can give you some idea where the damaging evidence is.
The democrats will regret insisting on witnesses. The democrat senators may miss the primaries unless Mitch allows a quick dismissal.

I doubt you get schiff as a witness. There almost 100% certainty he will be one of the managers the dems pick. I think this means he cant be called to testify, correct?

I have no clue if Schiff couldn't be called if he's a manager?? Why couldn't he? They have 3 or 4 other managers.
Schiff knows a lot about Ciaramella, and the various rules that he broke during the inquiry.

Just so you know, attacking the process is what obviously guilty mobsters do in an almost forlorn hope that a mistrial will be declared. They had better have a better plan than just trying to make the house democrats look bad. When this thing starts you will be astounded when Trump's defenders fail to even say anything about all that deep state bullshit they know cannot be backed up with evidence.

Mistrial? Who is going to declare that???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump has been accused of wrongdoing and impeached. Rudy is his personal attorney, and it's up to Rudy to try and prove corruption was indeed present during the Biden occupation of Burisma, therefore giving Trump the right to ask Zelensky for the favor.

Trump was impeached well after this all went down. If Trump is using his personal attorney, then that proves he was pushing for the investigation for personal reasons.

Which makes this impeachable.

What personal reasons? Joe was not his contender in July and isn't now. Nobody knows who Trump will be facing in the general election. And no, Rudy was in Ukraine long before the Trump impeachment. And we also have a Senate trial supposedly coming up soon. If Rudy does testify, he needs whatever evidence he gathers to prove his clients innocence.

Trump is running campaign ads against Biden. If Trump doesn't consider him a campaign adversary, he's in violation of campaign finance laws.

There is no evidence that Rudy can gather in Ukraine at this time which proves Trump's innocence. That's not how cause and effect works.

What????? Rudy can't look into matters in another country to defend his client? Are you from this country? Do you understand our justice system at all?

As you said, Rudy was in Ukraine working for Trump way before the impeachment. Trump’s use of his private lawyer demonstrates his ask to investigate Biden was for private benefit.

You can’t claim Rudy was in Ukraine to defend his client from charges that occurred subsequently.

The Democrats were talking about impeachment all along. So Rudy (who also said the state department asked for his assistance) went down to Ukraine in the event he was called as a witness. Now that the House impeached him, he still can be called as a witness during the Senate trial. He has every right to be there, and every right to find whatever it takes to defend his client.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump's legal defense team= Gooliani out
Dooshwich= in

Good f'n luck Donnie

How about if they're both in???? Hmmm?

 

[Nostra]

Are Republicans going to ask Ukraine for the DNC Server too?

As a special “favor”

Love your sig.

Not often you Dimwingers admit that if anyone agrees with you that they are wrong.