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?

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.

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

 

[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.

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

 

[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?

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.

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

Again...let's be honest...bad behavior USUALLY justifies bad behavior in return! What neighborhood did you grow up in...Mister Roger's? The only time you're not going to be looking for payback for someone who did you dirty is if the cops are around!
What you're saying is that Trump shouldn't do to Democrats what Democrats have been doing to him since he got the nomination! Trump ISN'T that guy!

 

[Oldstyle]

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.

I think Bolton would love nothing more than to tweak a few Democratic noses by letting them THINK he's going to roll over on Trump and then show up at the Senate trial as a witness and give them nothing at all.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

I don't really mean to insult any sex workers in good standing. They are some of the more honest people around because they don't lie about who they are. I just had to think of something to call the thing in the Oval Office to show complete disdain. And he will drop trou for anyone and anything.

It has been horrifying to see how many people are willing to happily accept and excuse every sort of law-breaking committed by it and its minions, including colluding with unfriendly nations and endangering our national security, all the while telling the rest of us that they are the "real" Americans and, unlike the rest of us, are "moral." I'm not sure that these people had any integrity to start with.

Moreover, they have insulted those persons with stellar reputations who have spent decades protecting us and making sure that the U.S. government runs smoothly regardless of which political party occupies the White House. Just one example: Robert Mueller. By anyone's standards, he has been a totally stand-up guy whose accomplishments are well-known, but they had a good time trashing him.

 

[Muhammed]

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.

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

Why are you presuming that if the DOJ announced that they were investigating Biden, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Slade3200]

Well then why isn’t there an investigation?

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

Why are you presuming that if the DOJ announced that they were investigating Biden, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The reason why the Reps want to call Hunter to testify is because their defense for Trumps impeachment is to counter the accusation that Trump was acting for political purposes. They will therefore try and justify Trumps ask for the Ukraine to investigate by making Biden look as corrupt as possible. It can’t be “digging for political dirt” if there was actual corruption going on. Right?

If there was a DOJ investigation going on, Trump could have easily leaked that and then used it as a talking point against the impeachment investigation... maybe even avoided the impeachment all together.

that’s the differentiator between what Biden did and what trump did. Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired. Trump took actions outside of his own administrations foreign policy interests to leverage funds to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political opponent. Maybe if you understood the differences you would understand what’s actually going on here and why Trump is being impeached by the minority while Biden is free and clear and campaigning for president as we speak. Reality is not adding up with what your narrative is trying to say. Wake up.

 

[Lysistrata]

Shokin was forced out because he was not investigating corruption and everybody knew it, including the IMF, not because he was investigating corruption. Vice President Biden was acting in accordance with U.S. policy.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

This attempt to involve the Bidens in the republicans' hocus-pocus is absurd.

But we must not forget the one key issue that the republicans want to bury: the Russians' meddling in U.S. politics and the love that the occupant of the Oval Office has for them and his sinister association with putin, which should be getting the lion's share of attention.

 

[Oldstyle]

Shokin was forced out because he was not investigating corruption and everybody knew it, including the IMF, not because he was investigating corruption. Vice President Biden was acting in accordance with U.S. policy.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

This attempt to involve the Bidens in the republicans' hocus-pocus is absurd.

But we must not forget the one key issue that the republicans want to bury: the Russians' meddling in U.S. politics and the love that the occupant of the Oval Office has for them and his sinister association with putin, which should be getting the lion's share of attention.

Back to Russian "collusion"? Didn't you get the memo, Lysistrata? That three year "trial balloon" crashed and burned like the Hindenburg! The truth is...Trump has been harder on Putin than Barry EVER was! What's being "buried" this time around is what the Democratic Party did in the Ukraine during the last Presidential election! That's where "collusion" really happened!

 

[Olde Europe]

Shokin was forced out because he was not investigating corruption and everybody knew it, including the IMF, not because he was investigating corruption. Vice President Biden was acting in accordance with U.S. policy.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

This attempt to involve the Bidens in the republicans' hocus-pocus is absurd.

But we must not forget the one key issue that the republicans want to bury: the Russians' meddling in U.S. politics and the love that the occupant of the Oval Office has for them and his sinister association with putin, which should be getting the lion's share of attention.

Quite. Also, all that has been explained a gazillion times - it didn't even slow down their lying on behalf of their Dear Leader.

Moreover, with Barr in the lead - not acting as the U.S.'s attorney, but as Trump's personal public defender (on the U.S. taxpayers' dime) - they also defeated, for all intents and purposes, the Mueller report. The consequence of that is to leave wide open the U.S. electoral system to the next instance of the Russian ratfcking.

Because Chalupa digging up dirt - and it turned out there were mountains thereof - on Manafort was the threat to the integrity of elections, not the Trump campaign's 150+ contacts with Russians, and Russian intelligence in particular.

I know, you're somewhat fond of Mueller, and there's nothing per se wrong with that. He's been perfectly clear on the Russian threat to U.S. elections. He has also been fiercely determined not to assign guilt to anyone named, or related to, Trump. That was the crack the Trumpletons widened, and they sailed through it with shiploads of lies while also ignoring the Russian threat. As far as I am concerned, while trying to save and protect the U.S. institutions he served his entire life, Mueller did a grave disservice to the U.S. of A.

 

[Lysistrata]

Shokin was forced out because he was not investigating corruption and everybody knew it, including the IMF, not because he was investigating corruption. Vice President Biden was acting in accordance with U.S. policy.

What really happened when Biden forced out Ukraine's top prosecutor

This attempt to involve the Bidens in the republicans' hocus-pocus is absurd.

But we must not forget the one key issue that the republicans want to bury: the Russians' meddling in U.S. politics and the love that the occupant of the Oval Office has for them and his sinister association with putin, which should be getting the lion's share of attention.

Quite. Also, all that has been explained a gazillion times - it didn't even slow down their lying on behalf of their Dear Leader.

Moreover, with Barr in the lead - not acting as the U.S.'s attorney, but as Trump's personal public defender (on the U.S. taxpayers' dime) - they also defeated, for all intents and purposes, the Mueller report. The consequence of that is to leave wide open the U.S. electoral system to the next instance of the Russian ratfcking.

Because Chalupa digging up dirt - and it turned out there were mountains thereof - on Manafort was the threat to the integrity of elections, not the Trump campaign's 150+ contacts with Russians, and Russian intelligence in particular.

I know, you're somewhat fond of Mueller, and there's nothing per se wrong with that. He's been perfectly clear on the Russian threat to U.S. elections. He has also been fiercely determined not to assign guilt to anyone named, or related to, Trump. That was the crack the Trumpletons widened, and they sailed through it with shiploads of lies while also ignoring the Russian threat. As far as I am concerned, while trying to save and protect the U.S. institutions he served his entire life, Mueller did a grave disservice to the U.S. of A.

I was very, very disappointed that Mueller punted. The only thing that I can say on his behalf is that he must have determined that he didn't have the evidence on hand to blow it all sky high. He was stone-walled. I have to give him that.

I've just been horrified that every person who has a good reputation going back decades and who has tried to preserve the structural integrity of our government against partisan hacks has been insulted and dragged through the mud. These are career diplomats, national security staff, career diplomats. No matter what party, they have always been treated with due respect and basic courtesy until this trump-led criminal mob came to town.

 

[Olde Europe]

I was very, very disappointed that Mueller punted. The only thing that I can say on his behalf is that he must have determined that he didn't have the evidence on hand to blow it all sky high. He was stone-walled. I have to give him that.

I've just been horrified that every person who has a good reputation going back decades and who has tried to preserve the structural integrity of our government against partisan hacks has been insulted and dragged through the mud. These are career diplomats, national security staff, career diplomats. No matter what party, they have always been treated with due respect and basic courtesy until this trump-led criminal mob came to town.

There was enough evidence, and then some. Yet, from the get-go, Mueller faced a conundrum, prosecuting an incompetent, vulgar and corrupt clown he most certainly despised (for the best of reasons), whom he also couldn't indict, and whom he couldn't irreparably damage (while leaving him in office) for fear of also damaging the institution of the presidency. So, what did he do? He left the kids off because they couldn't possibly have known their obviously criminal behavior was criminal (soliciting campaign aid from a foreign government). And to Trump he applied the evidentiary standard sufficient for conviction (beyond a reasonable doubt), not the standard sufficient for opening a criminal investigation (preponderance of evidence). Concerning the clear-cut cases of obstruction of justice, he simply withheld judgment. He left Pelosi and Barr with enough ambiguity, and a convoluted opus magnus next to no one has read, which no one felt capable of explaining to the electorate. Then came Barr and his barrage of lies, and that, finally, did Mueller in.

Whatever, they will do the same to the Ukraine extortion / Obstruction of Congress case. That is, his defense team will erect a sky high wall of lies so as to make the case disappear behind it, and McConnell will claim, in all impartiality, "Total Exoneration". That will also be Trump's drumbeat till election day. It's the drumbeat of a Republic - supposedly governed by laws - falling apart. It frightens me to death.

You know what, I am partly blaming President Obama for all that. He failed to prosecute anyone for lying the country into war, and neither for justifying / implementing Bush's torture program. After that, it was perfectly clear there is nothing they couldn't get away with. Trump had a bet on that, and he will win.

 

[Muhammed]

Why are you presuming that there isn't an investigation?

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

Why are you presuming that if the DOJ announced that they were investigating Biden, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The reason why the Reps want to call Hunter to testify is because their defense for Trumps impeachment is to counter the accusation that Trump was acting for political purposes. They will therefore try and justify Trumps ask for the Ukraine to investigate by making Biden look as corrupt as possible. It can’t be “digging for political dirt” if there was actual corruption going on. Right?

If there was a DOJ investigation going on, Trump could have easily leaked that and then used it as a talking point against the impeachment investigation... maybe even avoided the impeachment all together.

that’s the differentiator between what Biden did and what trump did. Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired. Trump took actions outside of his own administrations foreign policy interests to leverage funds to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political opponent. Maybe if you understood the differences you would understand what’s actually going on here and why Trump is being impeached by the minority while Biden is free and clear and campaigning for president as we speak. Reality is not adding up with what your narrative is trying to say. Wake up.

You make several specious claims in your post. For instance, you presume that Trump would leak info about ongoing DOJ investigations, even though he constantly rails against that practice. Is that your TDS talking?

You also claim that "Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired."

That is a canard that I've often heard from you Biden corruption apologists. However, when asked for specifics, you can never cite even a single instance of PG Shokin engaging in any sort of corrupt activity whatsoever.

But Biden admittedly extorted Ukrainian officials to get Viktor Shokin fired (just weeks after the attempted assassination via sniper attack on Shokin. CIA??) and replaced by Yuri Lutsenko.

So you have no evidence that Shokin was corrupt. But everybody knew that Lutsenko was corrupt due to his criminal record.

Lutsenko was installed as a puppet Prosecutor General by the Obama administration, ostensibly to fight corruption, even though Lutsenko had served prison time for corruption, had never actually practiced law, and had never even got a law degree or ever attended law school.

How the fuck do you explain that?

And Biden gets $millions out of the deal.

How do you explain that shit?

Can you explain why you think it is not suspicious enough to investigate?

 

[DBA]

In a country under the law, investigations are being started based on preliminary evidence. Law enforcement then decides whether or not the evidence warrants an investigation or not. "Hunter earned an income in Ukraine" is not evidence.

If there were any evidence for corruption on Hunter's part, it would be in the hands of the FBI (would have been for years), and they might have asked their Ukrainian counterparts for assistance. Hunter and his business partners would have been questioned, documents requested and whatnot.

Nothing of that kind happened. The reason for that is, there is no evidence. No one of a sane mind thinks there is any evidence anywhere.

Whoever still thinks Trump's extortionist shakedown, the request for (the announcement of) an investigation in return for an official act (release the properly appropriated aid), was anything other than politically motivated is a habitually lying Trumpleton. There is no possible excuse for such weak-minded mendacity. There is no possible excuse for any Senator, having sworn impartiality, to go along with that scheme.

Hunter Biden was hired by Ukraine and paid and exhorbitant salary for a job he was not qualified for all while his father just happened to be the VP who was put in charge of dealing with corruption of corruption in Ukraine and handling the US aid to them. Top that off with the fact that his father was pushing an agenda that would keep his son out of harms way(being investigated) and in fact bragged about how he would withhold the aid if they did not do what he wanted. See, that is a little different than your elementary "Hunter earned an income in Ukraine".

As for the FBI not investigating, they supposedly did look into it, but keep in mind, this is the Obama FBI. We all know, based on text messages, testimony and actions of the top brass that they were not likely to do anything that would harm Obama or the Obama presidency. The Biden situtation needs to be investigated because there is ample smoke.

 

[DBA]

What does United States vs Nixon say about Executive Privilege, Colfax! You've made the claim it says something different from what I've cited...so let's see you back that up!

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

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.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is to be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

 

[colfax_m]

Where does it say that there's only one exception to executive privilege?

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.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

 

[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.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

It's true for ALL legal documents! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.