The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

you have to admit a "look into that crime please" could be politicized and characterized how the left is doing it now, right?

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

you have to admit a "look into that crime please" could be politicized and characterized how the left is doing it now, right?

It could be yes, and it is. But it’s also not as simple as “could you look into it please”... there were many other actions taken outside that sentence during a phone call.

 

[iceberg]

I hate to point out the obvious here, Colfax but aren't you liberals the cop in your little car stop scenario? You're looking for anything you can in Trump's "back seat" and your searches are based on lies and innuendoes!

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.

They are telling you it's 2+2. It was a simple question. What factual testimony shows this was dirt gathering vs concern over a potential crime?

ANY excuse is an excuse. Not valid. You again are giving the Biden's full benefit of doubt and zerofor Trump.

That isn't 2+2.

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

you have to admit a "look into that crime please" could be politicized and characterized how the left is doing it now, right?

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

you have to admit a "look into that crime please" could be politicized and characterized how the left is doing it now, right?

It could be yes, and it is. But it’s also not as simple as “could you look into it please”... there were many other actions taken outside that sentence during a phone call.

Name them and show where it proves digging for dirt.

Don't pay much attention to circumstantial esp when disallowed for the Biden's.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

 

[Slade3200]

Well that’s not true... the search is based on a call transcript and a ton of witness testimony

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.

They are telling you it's 2+2. It was a simple question. What factual testimony shows this was dirt gathering vs concern over a potential crime?

ANY excuse is an excuse. Not valid. You again are giving the Biden's full benefit of doubt and zerofor Trump.

That isn't 2+2.

You are right I’m giving Biden much more credit than Trump. I’ve seen for three years how Trump operates, how he hyperbolizes, how he lies, and bully’s and attacks and discredits. His tactics are well known. I don’t believe that his interest in Biden corruption is an anomaly. There is a process to follow if there was significant evidence of corruption to warrant a joint investigation between the US and Ukraine. He didn’t follow that, he went back door with Rudy and he leveraged congressional approved funds to try and get what he wanted. I’m not saying 2+2=4 because I’m being told that by the Dems. I’m saying that because I know how to add.

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

 

[iceberg]

yet all of this "testimony" are people who are speculating at what trump meant on that call. there is zero proof of their speculation and we as a society can't just say "well that makes sense" cause by now you think we'd have learned to wait for the entire story. but we spend well over a decade looking at 13 seconds of video and making brash decisions on what was happening.

i fall back to CNN and the WE NEED OUR WEAVES interview. CNN showed enough of the interview to make it look like a young lady was telling people to stop the violence even though her brother was just shot and killed. what CNN killed was the rest of the video where she did the whole "take that shit to the white neighborhoods and tear it up" mantra and then went on a WTF "we need our weaves" as if they were justified in stealing hair-improvements.

if you want to say speculation is now valid proof, is that really a world you want to live in?

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.

They are telling you it's 2+2. It was a simple question. What factual testimony shows this was dirt gathering vs concern over a potential crime?

ANY excuse is an excuse. Not valid. You again are giving the Biden's full benefit of doubt and zerofor Trump.

That isn't 2+2.

You are right I’m giving Biden much more credit than Trump. I’ve seen for three years how Trump operates, how he hyperbolizes, how he lies, and bully’s and attacks and discredits. His tactics are well known. I don’t believe that his interest in Biden corruption is an anomaly. There is a process to follow if there was significant evidence of corruption to warrant a joint investigation between the US and Ukraine. He didn’t follow that, he went back door with Rudy and he leveraged congressional approved funds to try and get what he wanted. I’m not saying 2+2=4 because I’m being told that by the Dems. I’m saying that because I know how to add.

Then you are using 2 sets of rules. How is that being fair? You project onto Trump but won't allow that done to Biden. All I'm asking for is the same set of rules to apply to both. Don't care which set, but just 1. Facts or supposition. Both must follow the same process.

And I've asked 4 times now for what the facts are on Trump to link this to political dirt digging. It hasn't happened.

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Then what was his job? I'm all for questioning others, but a question like that to me implies you know the correct answer. What did hunter do and how do you know?

 

[Slade3200]

i don’t agree. The witnesses weren’t speculating about what Trump meant on that call they were testifying about their directives, agenda, and experiences while working in the administration. Most were active members of the Trump admin, not democrat trump haters.

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.

They are telling you it's 2+2. It was a simple question. What factual testimony shows this was dirt gathering vs concern over a potential crime?

ANY excuse is an excuse. Not valid. You again are giving the Biden's full benefit of doubt and zerofor Trump.

That isn't 2+2.

You are right I’m giving Biden much more credit than Trump. I’ve seen for three years how Trump operates, how he hyperbolizes, how he lies, and bully’s and attacks and discredits. His tactics are well known. I don’t believe that his interest in Biden corruption is an anomaly. There is a process to follow if there was significant evidence of corruption to warrant a joint investigation between the US and Ukraine. He didn’t follow that, he went back door with Rudy and he leveraged congressional approved funds to try and get what he wanted. I’m not saying 2+2=4 because I’m being told that by the Dems. I’m saying that because I know how to add.

Then you are using 2 sets of rules. How is that being fair? You project onto Trump but won't allow that done to Biden. All I'm asking for is the same set of rules to apply to both. Don't care which set, but just 1. Facts or supposition. Both must follow the same process.

And I've asked 4 times now for what the facts are on Trump to link this to political dirt digging. It hasn't happened.

I just laid that out in my last response. You obviously do not agree, which is fine. But that’s my reasoning along with the narrative that is unfolding from staffer testimony.

 

[iceberg]

and which of this testimony said that trump 100% for sure meant "give me dirt on biden for the election".

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.

They are telling you it's 2+2. It was a simple question. What factual testimony shows this was dirt gathering vs concern over a potential crime?

ANY excuse is an excuse. Not valid. You again are giving the Biden's full benefit of doubt and zerofor Trump.

That isn't 2+2.

You are right I’m giving Biden much more credit than Trump. I’ve seen for three years how Trump operates, how he hyperbolizes, how he lies, and bully’s and attacks and discredits. His tactics are well known. I don’t believe that his interest in Biden corruption is an anomaly. There is a process to follow if there was significant evidence of corruption to warrant a joint investigation between the US and Ukraine. He didn’t follow that, he went back door with Rudy and he leveraged congressional approved funds to try and get what he wanted. I’m not saying 2+2=4 because I’m being told that by the Dems. I’m saying that because I know how to add.

Then you are using 2 sets of rules. How is that being fair? You project onto Trump but won't allow that done to Biden. All I'm asking for is the same set of rules to apply to both. Don't care which set, but just 1. Facts or supposition. Both must follow the same process.

And I've asked 4 times now for what the facts are on Trump to link this to political dirt digging. It hasn't happened.

I just laid that out in my last response. You obviously do not agree, which is fine. But that’s my reasoning along with the narrative that is unfolding from staffer testimony.

You told me people said stuff who knew.

What did they say that was the smoking gun Trump was dirt digging? You didn't say anything specific just others provided info.

Want to know what was the exact quote, order or info that proves dirt digging.

 

[Oldstyle]

In the decision. Where does it say there are additional ones?

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

You don’t know what you’re talking about.

If the Supreme Court Justices intended "other exceptions" then they would have included them! They didn't. They were very specific about what exception applied.

Nope. That’s now how it works. The court answers the question before them. That’s it. There was no reason to include any other exemptions other than what was necessary to rule on the case.

If that's the case then why are you on the left claiming Executive Privilege doesn't apply in this case? If it hasn't been ruled on by the Supreme Court what makes it established law? Because a liberal Federal Court judge says so in a lower court ruling that's immediately appealed? How is it that you can impeach a President for an "offense" that the high court hasn't even determined IS an offense? It's ludicrous. Charging Trump with obstruction simply because he invokes a right that other Presidents before him have also invoked is blatantly unfair. If you want to charge him with that then take the case of what constitutes Executive Privilege to the Supreme Court...get a ruling from them on what is protected...and then charge Trump with obstruction if he won't comply with their decision. Doing what you're doing now is simply wrong!

 

[Slade3200]

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Then what was his job? I'm all for questioning others, but a question like that to me implies you know the correct answer. What did hunter do and how do you know?

I don’t presume to know just as I have no clue what the trump kids, Bill gates, or any other citizen joe does for their money. And last time I checked there needs to be something substantial to file charges or open an investigation into somebody. Right?

 

[Slade3200]

They gave us 2+2... the dems are making 4 and the Reps are making 3... that’s the debate.

They are telling you it's 2+2. It was a simple question. What factual testimony shows this was dirt gathering vs concern over a potential crime?

ANY excuse is an excuse. Not valid. You again are giving the Biden's full benefit of doubt and zerofor Trump.

That isn't 2+2.

You are right I’m giving Biden much more credit than Trump. I’ve seen for three years how Trump operates, how he hyperbolizes, how he lies, and bully’s and attacks and discredits. His tactics are well known. I don’t believe that his interest in Biden corruption is an anomaly. There is a process to follow if there was significant evidence of corruption to warrant a joint investigation between the US and Ukraine. He didn’t follow that, he went back door with Rudy and he leveraged congressional approved funds to try and get what he wanted. I’m not saying 2+2=4 because I’m being told that by the Dems. I’m saying that because I know how to add.

Then you are using 2 sets of rules. How is that being fair? You project onto Trump but won't allow that done to Biden. All I'm asking for is the same set of rules to apply to both. Don't care which set, but just 1. Facts or supposition. Both must follow the same process.

And I've asked 4 times now for what the facts are on Trump to link this to political dirt digging. It hasn't happened.

I just laid that out in my last response. You obviously do not agree, which is fine. But that’s my reasoning along with the narrative that is unfolding from staffer testimony.

You told me people said stuff who knew.

What did they say that was the smoking gun Trump was dirt digging? You didn't say anything specific just others provided info.

Want to know what was the exact quote, order or info that proves dirt digging.

Happy to lay it out for you later... that’s going to require some digging through A dozen testimonies and pulling quotes. There may be an article out there that sums it up, but that was my feeling after watching the hearings and examining all that has unfolded. I played golf in 3O mph winds and sideways rain today so I’m beat and not in the mood to do that work right now.

Im also not claiming there is a smoking gun. Trumps motives are obvious to me, but I dont think there is a recording of him saying “I did it because...” which is why I don’t support this impeachment and think it’s gonna backfire.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

 

[Coyote]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Huh?

Biden has nothing to do with Trump's actions. There is nothing Biden could say that would shed any light on what Trump is accused of doing.

If the corruption was true, it woulf justify trumps actions.

No. It wouldn't. Trump had all the legal agencies at his fingertips to conduct an actual investigation. Why didn't he?

 

[Slade3200]

Because Mitch wants as little attention to the impeachment trial as possible....

He can call Hunter -- but when it comes to under oath testimony, the testimony Bolton and Mulvaney gives will be far more damning than Republicans asking Hunter shit that they themselves don't have any evidence of...because if they did have evidence of his corruption, there would have been an FBI and DOJ investigation already ongoing...

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

Again, how do you know what he was hired for? Maybe he wasn’t hired for experience with Ukraine or oil and gas. Maybe he was hired for public relations, or to give foot massages to secretaries.... point being it doesn’t sound like you know anything about anything besides right wing conspiracy narratives.

 

[Oldstyle]

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

Again, how do you know what he was hired for? Maybe he wasn’t hired for experience with Ukraine or oil and gas. Maybe he was hired for public relations, or to give foot massages to secretaries.... point being it doesn’t sound like you know anything about anything besides right wing conspiracy narratives.

Well gee whiz...if he's sitting on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company...a reasonable person would assume that he has some knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry. Are you really going to sit here and claim that hiring someone for a job at $50,000 a month that he doesn't really do anything for (as shown by the fact that in five years he didn't go to the Ukraine ONCE on Burisma business!) seems on the up and up to you? That isn't a conspiracy theory...it's simply pointing out how sleazy this whole thing looked!

 

[Oldstyle]

As for the reason why Hunter Biden was hired? Isn't it obvious? Come on...don't embarrass yourself defending something that's obviously corrupt even if it isn't illegal!

 

[Slade3200]

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

Again, how do you know what he was hired for? Maybe he wasn’t hired for experience with Ukraine or oil and gas. Maybe he was hired for public relations, or to give foot massages to secretaries.... point being it doesn’t sound like you know anything about anything besides right wing conspiracy narratives.

Well gee whiz...if he's sitting on the board of a Ukrainian natural gas company...a reasonable person would assume that he has some knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry. Are you really going to sit here and claim that hiring someone for a job at $50,000 a month that he doesn't really do anything for (as shown by the fact that in five years he didn't go to the Ukraine ONCE on Burisma business!) seems on the up and up to you? That isn't a conspiracy theory...it's simply pointing out how sleazy this whole thing looked!

youre not even coming close to answering the question... how do you know hunter did nothing? You don’t know that

I had a tech company years ago and there was a lawyer on our board of directors who didn’t know jack shit about tech, but they knew law and understood our biz model free. I work with a golf program now that has a half dozen people on the board that don’t even play golf but they can fund raise... point being you don’t know why he was hired or what he did, and without evidence that he was doing something illegal you don’t really have a right to know. This has got to be one of your weakest arguments

 

[Lysistrata]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.