The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[Oldstyle]

Seriously? 13x I ask for 1 fact and get "read all that crap" yet here you are demanding someone provide proof.

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

 

[Slade3200]

If you asked 13 times then you got 13 answers. I never claimed there was a smoking gun fact, I’ve started threads speaking out against impeachment for that very reason. But I do have an opinion based on what I’ve observed. I’ve explained that. Fine for you to disagree but stop changing the conversation back to the personal hypocrisy stuff. It’s getting old.

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

 

[Oldstyle]

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!

its funny and interesting to me that you can be so confident in something you know very very little about. You don’t know what Biden was hired to do, you don’t know what he did, you don’t know how he did it, yet you presume to know it all based on what I can only assume are conspiracy media reports.

I base all of that on reporting done by Reuters...the New York Times...Politifact...and the Wall Street Journal, Slade. Did you want to call any of them "conspiracy media"?

It's rather obvious what Hunter Biden DID for Burisma! He got paid a lot of money for them to use his name.
Firm Hired by Ukraine’s Burisma Tried to Use Hunter Biden as Leverage, Documents Show

To save a ton of time and wasted breath I’m actually fine agreeing with your statement. Let’s say he was hired for his name and nothing more. It was a PR and branding move. “Hey instead of paying 2 million for that super bowl commercial let’s pay Biden 50k a month and liter his name all over our brochures” No crime there... I know you would have turned that down but really... what the hell are we even talking about here?!?! You can’t even accuse him of a crime

To be quite honest, I could care less about Hunter Biden. I think he's pretty much a worthless piece of shit.

I would however like to see a real investigation into what the Clinton campaign was doing with parties in the Ukraine during that last election cycle. If you're really worried about "collusion" corrupting our elections I would think you would want that as well.

 

[Oldstyle]

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

A line? Let's call a spade a spade, Slade! The Democrats have gone so far across every "line" that's ever been drawn with their treatment of Trump it's become a "ho hum" daily occurrence! Do I really blame Trump for wanting to give them a taste of their own medicine? He's not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy! He's a New Yorker. They tend to give as good as they get.

Embarrassing Biden for what took place between Burisma and his son is petty but with the political climate that we live in it's pretty small potatoes. Paying someone to concoct false stories about your political opponent is a hell of a lot worse than exposing them for things they've actually done! Just saying...

 

[iceberg]

You never once linked to a fact. "read the testimony" isn't an answer. It's a cop out.

So yes it's your personal hypocrisy that I am illustrating. Don't hlame me you dont like it.

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

I thought someone heard him on the phone for a private call. when was the investigation launched?

and there was nothing illegal about Trump and Russia so hey, they way we are these days

 

[kwc57]

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.

The President is not an all powerful King and doesn't have the power to declare a US Citizens guilty or not.

Seriously? You watched that sham of a shit show Mueller investigation and House Impeachment and think people in power can't declare a US citizen guilty? The whole damn thing started with an unsubstantiated dossier paid for by the DNC and their presidential candidate.

Not sure what you're whining about cupcake, Mueller was appointed by Republicans. Trumpybear was impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign government into publicly announcing an investigations into his Democrat opponent as well as the Russian theory that it was The Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in our 2016 election.

I don't believe any amount of witness testimony will change enough Trumpublican votes to convict the POS however. They could all come out and admit they did it for old Trumpybear and the TOP, and the Senate would still embrace the corruption that The Dirty Don and his Cronies represents.

The fact that you can overlook the corruption involved in the spying of a candidate and the resulting coup attempt tells me your faux concerns are to be taken with a grain of salt. You don't give a shit about corruption. If you did, you'd be calling for the heads of Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the multitude of underlings who built a false case on false evidence and tied up American government for three years. Putin was highly successful, but it wasn't thru Trump. It eas thru those trying to remove him. Pull your pinhead out of your ass and take a breath.

 

[Slade3200]

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!

its funny and interesting to me that you can be so confident in something you know very very little about. You don’t know what Biden was hired to do, you don’t know what he did, you don’t know how he did it, yet you presume to know it all based on what I can only assume are conspiracy media reports.

I base all of that on reporting done by Reuters...the New York Times...Politifact...and the Wall Street Journal, Slade. Did you want to call any of them "conspiracy media"?

It's rather obvious what Hunter Biden DID for Burisma! He got paid a lot of money for them to use his name.
Firm Hired by Ukraine’s Burisma Tried to Use Hunter Biden as Leverage, Documents Show

To save a ton of time and wasted breath I’m actually fine agreeing with your statement. Let’s say he was hired for his name and nothing more. It was a PR and branding move. “Hey instead of paying 2 million for that super bowl commercial let’s pay Biden 50k a month and liter his name all over our brochures” No crime there... I know you would have turned that down but really... what the hell are we even talking about here?!?! You can’t even accuse him of a crime

To be quite honest, I could care less about Hunter Biden. I think he's pretty much a worthless piece of shit.

I would however like to see a real investigation into what the Clinton campaign was doing with parties in the Ukraine during that last election cycle. If you're really worried about "collusion" corrupting our elections I would think you would want that as well.

Ok, that’s fine, but it’s a different topic than what we are discussing

 

[Slade3200]

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

A line? Let's call a spade a spade, Slade! The Democrats have gone so far across every "line" that's ever been drawn with their treatment of Trump it's become a "ho hum" daily occurrence! Do I really blame Trump for wanting to give them a taste of their own medicine? He's not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy! He's a New Yorker. They tend to give as good as they get.

Embarrassing Biden for what took place between Burisma and his son is petty but with the political climate that we live in it's pretty small potatoes. Paying someone to concoct false stories about your political opponent is a hell of a lot worse than exposing them for things they've actually done! Just saying...

so what I’m hearing from you is that the Dems use disgusting tactics and you think Trump has a right to hit back and give them a taste of their own medicine. But what I’m not hearing is whether you think there is a line of what’s acceptable and not for a president to use the power of his office for when it comes to progressing his political agenda

 

[Slade3200]

why would I link to a fact when I’ve said several times that there isn’t a smoking gun fact proving intent? Why would I start threads opposing impeachment if I thought there was a smoking gun fact?

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

I thought someone heard him on the phone for a private call. when was the investigation launched?

and there was nothing illegal about Trump and Russia so hey, they way we are these days

huh? I didn’t understand your question or the point you were trying to make...

 

[Oldstyle]

Because you keep saying Trump is guilty but have no fact on it. Then say give facts Biden is guilty.

Tapping out.

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

A line? Let's call a spade a spade, Slade! The Democrats have gone so far across every "line" that's ever been drawn with their treatment of Trump it's become a "ho hum" daily occurrence! Do I really blame Trump for wanting to give them a taste of their own medicine? He's not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy! He's a New Yorker. They tend to give as good as they get.

Embarrassing Biden for what took place between Burisma and his son is petty but with the political climate that we live in it's pretty small potatoes. Paying someone to concoct false stories about your political opponent is a hell of a lot worse than exposing them for things they've actually done! Just saying...

so what I’m hearing from you is that the Dems use disgusting tactics and you think Trump has a right to hit back and give them a taste of their own medicine. But what I’m not hearing is whether you think there is a line of what’s acceptable and not for a president to use the power of his office for when it comes to progressing his political agenda

Now I'm confused, Slade...how does calling for an investigation into some sleazy practices by Democrats in the Ukraine progress Trump's political agenda?

As for the "line" that you keep referring to? To be blunt it's hard to fault Trump for doing far less than what the Democrats have done TO him since he became the nominee! You've got a tidal wave on one side of that equation and a small trickle on the other!

 

[Olde Europe]

The trumpsters are trying to find some way to involve the Bidens in this, but it just isn't there. They are just blowing something out of their asses. How would the orange whore even know anything about either Biden and the Ukraine to ask them specifically, by name, to be investigated with a big public show, after firing our ambassador for no reason? We know that the orange whore sucks whatever putin wants him to, this scheme is a good way to take the heat off of putin and the russians and put it on their enemy, Ukraine, and go after a political enemy. The orange whore's concern about "corruption" is a total fraud.

I could hardly agree more.

What's actually even more disconcerting is the scores of people giddily going along with Trump's obvious corruption and abuse of office, down to the sleazebags who decry investigating the Mafia Don an unwarranted overreaction - any and all declaring Trump to be above the law. None can remember their last encounter with their integrity.

There's just one thing that irks me, and that would be your insulting whores by comparing them to Trump. They do not deserve that slanderous insult.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's the "line" that the DNC shouldn't stray across? Or is it OK for a major political party to pay for foreign agents to smear a candidate from the opposition party? For them to do THAT and then turn around and demand impeachment over the President simply calling for Biden's ACTUAL behavior to be spotlighted seems to me to be hypocrisy of the highest order!

 

[Slade3200]

Guilty of what?! I’m not bouncing around saying Trump is guilty and needs to be impeached and arrested, you’ve been trying to drill down this smoking gun fact but your not talking to somebody who is calling for Trump to be impeached.

I have an opinion of trump based on observing the guy for years so to me his motives seem obvious but I’m not calling on him to be legally pursued, just as I’m not calling on Biden to be legally pursued.

so my question to you is where are you on it? You seem to have them both tied together... are you for Trump and Biden to both be pursued for criminal activity or neither?

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

A line? Let's call a spade a spade, Slade! The Democrats have gone so far across every "line" that's ever been drawn with their treatment of Trump it's become a "ho hum" daily occurrence! Do I really blame Trump for wanting to give them a taste of their own medicine? He's not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy! He's a New Yorker. They tend to give as good as they get.

Embarrassing Biden for what took place between Burisma and his son is petty but with the political climate that we live in it's pretty small potatoes. Paying someone to concoct false stories about your political opponent is a hell of a lot worse than exposing them for things they've actually done! Just saying...

so what I’m hearing from you is that the Dems use disgusting tactics and you think Trump has a right to hit back and give them a taste of their own medicine. But what I’m not hearing is whether you think there is a line of what’s acceptable and not for a president to use the power of his office for when it comes to progressing his political agenda

Now I'm confused, Slade...how does calling for an investigation into some sleazy practices by Democrats in the Ukraine progress Trump's political agenda?

As for the "line" that you keep referring to? To be blunt it's hard to fault Trump for doing far less than what the Democrats have done TO him since he became the nominee! You've got a tidal wave on one side of that equation and a small trickle on the other!

I don’t see how it can’t be political given that the focus was on the DNC and on Biden.

the line I’m talking about isn’t on how he treats the Dems it’s on how he uses his office.

let’s strip this thing down to the bare ACCUSATIONS to determine IF true whether it constitutes something wrong or something impeachable in your mind....

Would you consider it OK for a POTUS to leverage aid and a meeting at the White House to get a foreign country to announce an investigation into his rival which would hurt the public perception of that rival and give that POTUS ammo for attack during an upcoming election. We are assuming there is no evidence of a crime, just a relationship that can be exploited with corrupt narratives... do you really think that would be ok for Trump and any future POTUS to do?

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

The President is not an all powerful King and doesn't have the power to declare a US Citizens guilty or not.

Seriously? You watched that sham of a shit show Mueller investigation and House Impeachment and think people in power can't declare a US citizen guilty? The whole damn thing started with an unsubstantiated dossier paid for by the DNC and their presidential candidate.

Not sure what you're whining about cupcake, Mueller was appointed by Republicans. Trumpybear was impeached for attempting to coerce a foreign government into publicly announcing an investigations into his Democrat opponent as well as the Russian theory that it was The Ukraine, not Russia, who interfered in our 2016 election.

I don't believe any amount of witness testimony will change enough Trumpublican votes to convict the POS however. They could all come out and admit they did it for old Trumpybear and the TOP, and the Senate would still embrace the corruption that The Dirty Don and his Cronies represents.

The fact that you can overlook the corruption involved in the spying of a candidate and the resulting coup attempt tells me your faux concerns are to be taken with a grain of salt. You don't give a shit about corruption. If you did, you'd be calling for the heads of Comey, Brennan, Clapper and the multitude of underlings who built a false case on false evidence and tied up American government for three years. Putin was highly successful, but it wasn't thru Trump. It eas thru those trying to remove him. Pull your pinhead out of your ass and take a breath.

You guys are too funny with your deflection attempts and insults. Justified FBI investigations are now some kind of spooky spying and winning the majority in the House for the 2019 -2020 session is a Coup. Weaponizing foreign aid against half the country is corruption that can not stand in our two party Republic. Placing the Executive above the law should not stand either.

 

[Oldstyle]

There is nothing criminal in either Trump OR Biden's actions. In Biden's case it only shows a level of sleaziness that's disturbing. In Trump's case it only shows a level of pettiness trying to dish out a little of what he'd been getting from the Democrats. Bottom line...this entire impeachment is political theatre...a waste of time...a waste of money.

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

A line? Let's call a spade a spade, Slade! The Democrats have gone so far across every "line" that's ever been drawn with their treatment of Trump it's become a "ho hum" daily occurrence! Do I really blame Trump for wanting to give them a taste of their own medicine? He's not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy! He's a New Yorker. They tend to give as good as they get.

Embarrassing Biden for what took place between Burisma and his son is petty but with the political climate that we live in it's pretty small potatoes. Paying someone to concoct false stories about your political opponent is a hell of a lot worse than exposing them for things they've actually done! Just saying...

so what I’m hearing from you is that the Dems use disgusting tactics and you think Trump has a right to hit back and give them a taste of their own medicine. But what I’m not hearing is whether you think there is a line of what’s acceptable and not for a president to use the power of his office for when it comes to progressing his political agenda

Now I'm confused, Slade...how does calling for an investigation into some sleazy practices by Democrats in the Ukraine progress Trump's political agenda?

As for the "line" that you keep referring to? To be blunt it's hard to fault Trump for doing far less than what the Democrats have done TO him since he became the nominee! You've got a tidal wave on one side of that equation and a small trickle on the other!

I don’t see how it can’t be political given that the focus was on the DNC and on Biden.

the line I’m talking about isn’t on how he treats the Dems it’s on how he uses his office.

let’s strip this thing down to the bare ACCUSATIONS to determine IF true whether it constitutes something wrong or something impeachable in your mind....

Would you consider it OK for a POTUS to leverage aid and a meeting at the White House to get a foreign country to announce an investigation into his rival which would hurt the public perception of that rival and give that POTUS ammo for attack during an upcoming election. We are assuming there is no evidence of a crime, just a relationship that can be exploited with corrupt narratives... do you really think that would be ok for Trump and any future POTUS to do?

I don't like it. I think it's a poor use of Presidential power and leverage. That being said...I completely understand why Trump did it. His opposition PAID for lies to be concocted against him and then used high ranking members of the Intelligence Community and sympathetic supporters in the main stream media to smear him FOR YEARS! All he's done is ask that a spotlight be turned on Joe Biden's sleazy behavior. It's like complaining that someone pulled a knife on you after you shot at them for weeks!

 

[Slade3200]

If there was nothing illegal going on with Biden and it was just sleazy behavior then do you think it appropriate for Trump to use his office to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden? Do you think there’s a line there that shouldn’t be crossed?

A line? Let's call a spade a spade, Slade! The Democrats have gone so far across every "line" that's ever been drawn with their treatment of Trump it's become a "ho hum" daily occurrence! Do I really blame Trump for wanting to give them a taste of their own medicine? He's not a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy! He's a New Yorker. They tend to give as good as they get.

Embarrassing Biden for what took place between Burisma and his son is petty but with the political climate that we live in it's pretty small potatoes. Paying someone to concoct false stories about your political opponent is a hell of a lot worse than exposing them for things they've actually done! Just saying...

so what I’m hearing from you is that the Dems use disgusting tactics and you think Trump has a right to hit back and give them a taste of their own medicine. But what I’m not hearing is whether you think there is a line of what’s acceptable and not for a president to use the power of his office for when it comes to progressing his political agenda

Now I'm confused, Slade...how does calling for an investigation into some sleazy practices by Democrats in the Ukraine progress Trump's political agenda?

As for the "line" that you keep referring to? To be blunt it's hard to fault Trump for doing far less than what the Democrats have done TO him since he became the nominee! You've got a tidal wave on one side of that equation and a small trickle on the other!

I don’t see how it can’t be political given that the focus was on the DNC and on Biden.

the line I’m talking about isn’t on how he treats the Dems it’s on how he uses his office.

let’s strip this thing down to the bare ACCUSATIONS to determine IF true whether it constitutes something wrong or something impeachable in your mind....

Would you consider it OK for a POTUS to leverage aid and a meeting at the White House to get a foreign country to announce an investigation into his rival which would hurt the public perception of that rival and give that POTUS ammo for attack during an upcoming election. We are assuming there is no evidence of a crime, just a relationship that can be exploited with corrupt narratives... do you really think that would be ok for Trump and any future POTUS to do?

I don't like it. I think it's a poor use of Presidential power and leverage. That being said...I completely understand why Trump did it. His opposition PAID for lies to be concocted against him and then used high ranking members of the Intelligence Community and sympathetic supporters in the main stream media to smear him FOR YEARS! All he's done is ask that a spotlight be turned on Joe Biden's sleazy behavior. It's like complaining that someone pulled a knife on you after you shot at them for weeks!

If you want to go after illegal actions that the DNC did to trump then that’s fine... but bad behavior from one does not justify the bad behavior of another... especially when one of the actors is the most powerful person in the world. Trump can get as sleazy as he wants in his rallies, but there needs to be standard with how he uses the power of his office.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

If only the democrats are so lucky.

Trump supporters are going to go all the way with him - whatever comes out of the trial those supporters will explain it away. I do not see those in the center treating any Bidens as witnesses called in good faith. For that reason I do not see the republicans actually calling them - I do not see where they would gain from it. It is not as though anything that comes to light in testimony will be more damning than the open and unquestioned dirt the right is constantly slinging at them. Hunter is more useful as a blank wall.

You May be right... but many will take any opportunity to shift the spotlight and focus away from trump and onto Biden. Get a few news cycles out of it. Doesn’t matter what they are saying as long as they are talking about it...

I think there are two things the republicans cannot do here without serious political problems. One is calling a Biden as a witness and the other, imho, is refusing to call witnesses at all.

I think the outcome will likely be Parnas rejected as a witness, Bolton will likely be called and I think the republicans will use the whistle blower as their witness. They are going to try and continue to paint this as a political hit job by Shiff and Pelosi and there is almost no way to get around Bolton as a witness considering he will not only have first hand information but has put himself out there as wanting to testify.

I have to wonder, why?

 

[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?

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.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

If only the democrats are so lucky.

Trump supporters are going to go all the way with him - whatever comes out of the trial those supporters will explain it away. I do not see those in the center treating any Bidens as witnesses called in good faith. For that reason I do not see the republicans actually calling them - I do not see where they would gain from it. It is not as though anything that comes to light in testimony will be more damning than the open and unquestioned dirt the right is constantly slinging at them. Hunter is more useful as a blank wall.

You May be right... but many will take any opportunity to shift the spotlight and focus away from trump and onto Biden. Get a few news cycles out of it. Doesn’t matter what they are saying as long as they are talking about it...

I think there are two things the republicans cannot do here without serious political problems. One is calling a Biden as a witness and the other, imho, is refusing to call witnesses at all.

I think the outcome will likely be Parnas rejected as a witness, Bolton will likely be called and I think the republicans will use the whistle blower as their witness. They are going to try and continue to paint this as a political hit job by Shiff and Pelosi and there is almost no way to get around Bolton as a witness considering he will not only have first hand information but has put himself out there as wanting to testify.

I have to wonder, why?

I think Bolton is hyping his book. Don’t think he is going to damn Trump with his testimony but will give fuel for both sides to spin and use.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

If only the democrats are so lucky.

Trump supporters are going to go all the way with him - whatever comes out of the trial those supporters will explain it away. I do not see those in the center treating any Bidens as witnesses called in good faith. For that reason I do not see the republicans actually calling them - I do not see where they would gain from it. It is not as though anything that comes to light in testimony will be more damning than the open and unquestioned dirt the right is constantly slinging at them. Hunter is more useful as a blank wall.

You May be right... but many will take any opportunity to shift the spotlight and focus away from trump and onto Biden. Get a few news cycles out of it. Doesn’t matter what they are saying as long as they are talking about it...

I think there are two things the republicans cannot do here without serious political problems. One is calling a Biden as a witness and the other, imho, is refusing to call witnesses at all.

I think the outcome will likely be Parnas rejected as a witness, Bolton will likely be called and I think the republicans will use the whistle blower as their witness. They are going to try and continue to paint this as a political hit job by Shiff and Pelosi and there is almost no way to get around Bolton as a witness considering he will not only have first hand information but has put himself out there as wanting to testify.

I have to wonder, why?

I think Bolton is hyping his book. Don’t think he is going to damn Trump with his testimony but will give fuel for both sides to spin and use.

Have to agree there.

If Bolton had something real to add he would not be playing these games. The sad part here is that in playing those games he is giving the republicans a scapegoat in calling him as a witness.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Just having a reasonable suspicion that there was corruption justifies Trump's action.

Joe Biden got caught on a live stream video confessing that he held up a $1 billion loan guarantee backed by the US Treasury until Ukraine fired their Prosecutor General, Viktor Shokin.

That video alone creates enough reasonable suspicion to open an investigation.