Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The Slant Political Board' started by 2000Jayhawk, Oct 26, 2019.
You seriously need to pull your head out. No one is buying this crap.
Progressives live in an alternate reality. There's zero chance he has the ability to pull his head out. It's a mental disorder.
Here's a decent article talking about how things are different (and getting dangerous). It talks a little about what you have said, but more talks about how things are now different than before. It is partly the point I was making (though I focused more on the language). Good read:
That was a great read, if not a little scary. And while I agree with the article regarding Trump's refusal to comply with the inquiry, I also believe that the Dem house is subverting the Constitution by using the impeachment process for political purposes. Impeachment is meant to be used when the President has done something wrong....not to help a party get elected.
I agree in that I think this 'regime cleavage' could be in its opening stage but not yet come to fruition. But I also think its being perpetuated by both parties.
It's all there. Look at your post history. It's entirely you having a near stroke regardless of what I post, and a quarter of that time I'm correcting you on what I actually wrote.
And nearly the entire board will agree that @Nipro post history is a entirely a 1:1 ratio of him calling someone names. He provides zero substance to this board, unless you are entertained by his antics.
Didn't you threaten to put me on ignore @Hawker-2001 ? Put your money where your mouth is. Either do that, or get used to me continuing to post facts and objective reasoning.
I would agree its all there...in your head. You're a legend in your own mind.
Subverting the Constitution? They are following exactly what the constitution allows.
You earlier said you didn't think the transcript indicated a quid pro quo, but if it did, that would be bad. There are now multiple people who are Trump supporters and had inside knowledge saying it was a quid pro quo. Does that change things for you?
Not really. Quid pro quo happens all the time in foreign relations...I don't recall anyone having a problem when past presidents used it. I'll grant you its a little different to use it for political gain, but its still a reach to call it an impeachable defense.
The Constitution allows many things including paying bounties to suppress rebellions and disallowing soldiers to be quartered in private homes. The point being that the impeachment process is supposed to be used when the president did something wrong. He's done nothing wrong that I can see where even discussing impeachment would be reasonable.
Is it legal? Sure, but that's not what it was meant for...and the Dems using it for political purposes is disgusting. And if in the near future the GOP regains the House and decides to impeach the Dem president, I better not hear a word from you.
It’s not for political gain. It’s investigating corruption. Since when was there ever a rule that a corrupt politician couldn’t be investigated because they were running for office? It’s only ever happened once and that was when Comey gave Hillary a pass. Running for office is not supposed to be a stay out of jail pass.
So you don't care if the President uses his position for purely personal reasons? You don't see that as an egregious abuse of power, and the most basic form of corruption?
And yes, quid pro quos happen all the time, but they are usually for the benefit of the nation. For instance, saying, "we won't give you money if you don't improve human rights" is one thing, saying, "we won't give you money unless you help me win reelection" is entirely different.
Edit: I just double checked to see your earlier comments on a quid pro quo. You said Trump lying about the discussion with Ukraine, would be, "a big deal." Do you no longer consider him lying about the discussion a big deal? It was part of a discussion where you were arguing in effect lying on foreign relations could be an impeachable offense.
Wrong. It's them making a political calculation and doing what they can to hinder his reelection campaign.
As for the investigation, if it were just that, they wouldn't even bring up impeachment....they'd merely say they were investigating, like they did with the Russian Collusion. But they didn't...they went straight to impeachment. The fact that they had an actual crime with the Russian Collusion at least somewhat legitimizes that investigation...here they don't even have that.
Wrong, it’s about Joe Biden having the Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he was investigating the company that Hunter Biden was being paid to work for (without experience) because his dad was VP at the time. It’s a corruption investigation not a political smear.
I think this idea came about from that meeting where Obama had someone visiting in the garden who had supposedly been mistreated. I can't remeber the full details but it got some noteriaty from the right.
A) I already listed a number of crimes that may have been committed and likely were committed by the Ukraine work;
B) Do you care if the President was corrupt? Before you said lying was a big deal, but now you're saying that blatant corruption isn't?
Obama wearing a tan suit got notoriety from the right. I remember what he said and I don't remember any of it rising to the level hawker is stating.
Remember when Obama illegally spied on the press (James Rosen) as well as senators by bugging a phone in the Senate? That was more impeachable than this as was Biden firing the Ukranian AG because he was investigating Burisma.
Biden fired the Ukrainian AG? I didn't realize he was the US VP and the President of Ukraine. Quite the resume.
And while correcting lies is useless when talking to someone from the right, but the AG wasn't investigating Burisma.
Are you not up to speed because you've not had time to get there or because you've been reading propaganda?
Myth: The allegation that Joe Biden tried to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian gas firm employer has been debunked, and there is no evidence the ex-vice president did anything improper.
The Facts: Joe Biden is captured on videotape bragging about his effort to strong-arm Ukraine’s president into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Biden told a foreign policy group in early 2018 that he used the threat of withholding $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev to successfully force Shokin’s firing.
It also is not in dispute that at the time he forced the firing, the vice president’s office knew Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings, the company where Hunter Biden worked as a board member and consultant. Team Biden was alerted to the investigation in a December 2015 New York Times article. You can read that article here.
The unresolved question is what motivated Joe Biden to seek Shokin’s ouster. Biden says he took the action solely because the U.S. and Western allies believed Shokin was ineffective in fighting corruption. Shokin told me, ABC News and others that he was fired because Joe Biden was unhappy that the Burisma investigation was not shut down. He made similar statements in an affidavit prepared to be filed in an European court. You can read that affidavit here.
In the end, though, whether Joe Biden had good or bad intentions in getting Shokin fired is somewhat irrelevant to the question of the vice president’s ethical obligation.
U.S. ethics rules require all government officials to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest in taking official actions. Ethics experts I talked with say Biden should have recused himself from the Shokin matter once he learned about the Burisma investigation to avoid the appearance issue.
And a senior U.S. diplomat was quoted in testimony reported by The Washington Post earlier this month that he tried to raise warnings with Biden’s VP office in 2015 that Hunter Biden’s role at the Ukrainian firm raised the potential issue of conflicts of interest.
Myth: Ukraine’s investigation into Burisma Holdings was no longer active when Joe Biden forced Shokin’s firing in March 2016.
The Facts: This is one of the most egregiously false statements spread by the media. Ukraine’s official case file for Burisma Holdings, provided to me by prosecutors, shows there were two active investigations into the gas firm and its founder Mykola Zlochevsky in early 2016, one involving corruption allegations and the other involving unpaid taxes.
In fact, Shokin told me in an interview he was making plans to interview Burisma board members, including Hunter Biden, at the time he was fired. And it was publicly reported that in February 2016, a month before Shokin was fired, that Ukrainian prosecutors raided one of Zlochevsky’s homes and seized expensive items like a luxury car as part of the corruption probe. You can read a contemporaneous news report about the seizure here.
Burisma’s own legal activities also clearly show the investigations were active at the time Shokin was fired. Internal emails I obtained from the American legal team representing Burisma show that on March 29, 2016 – the very day Shokin was fired – Burisma lawyer John Buretta was seeking a meeting with Shokin’s temporary replacement in hopes of settling the open cases.
In May 2016 when new Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko was appointed, Buretta then sent a letter to the new prosecutor seeking to resolve the investigations of Burisma and Zlochevsky. You can read that letter here.
Buretta eventually gave a February 2017 interview to the Kiev Post in which he divulged that the corruption probe was resolved in fall 2016 and the tax case by early January 2017. You can read Buretta’s interview here.
In another words, the Burisma investigations were active at the time Vice President Biden forced Shokin’s firing, and any suggestion to the contrary is pure misinformation.
Actually I am caught up and John Solomon is not on my list of blogs to read. But I'm sure a random ass blog post is defensible. Here's a media source maybe you'll believe. Part of their finding:
"Put simply, the chronology doesn’t work – the investigation into Burisma, where Hunter worked, was dormant by the time Shokin was pushed out. It would also represent a major historical anomaly. During Shokin’s 13 months in office, not one major figure was convicted. No oligarch. No politician. No ranking bureaucrat. It would appear unlikely he was in the middle of breaking the habit with the Bidens."
"The approach of Shokin’s office to the Burisma investigations fell into a well-practiced pattern of corruption...by the time of Biden’s intervention, there were no active investigations to speak of. "
Shokin has submitted a statement that is in direct contradiction to your quote.
Page 4 sections 8 and 9 confirm that his investigation was very much open and that he was fired because he refused to close his investigation into Burisma.
You can choose not to believe Shokin but that's refusing to take it from the horses mouth.
At minimum we have a conflict of interest case where Biden should have clearly recused himself to save himself from the perception of impropriety.
Even if you dispute the contention of Shokin there is more than enough for Trump to have Biden's Ukranian issues investigated. It's not a political investigation into Biden, it's corruption.
Shokin is a compromised individual as he's defending himself. It's like saying at the start of a trial that because the Defendant pled not guilty, then they are not guilty despite the heaps of evidence.
How is it a conflict of interest if he's not investigating the company of Biden's son?
And you can't claim conflict of interest as Trump should have recused himself and his government then from pressuring the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump's political rival.
And what did Hunter do that was illegal? Please cite one thing because later Uk AGs said there is no proof of illegality.
And as usual you list crimes that may have been committed. Show me some crimes that actually happened and you might have a case. Right now, you've got rumor and innuendo. Again.
I do care if the president is corrupt, but you haven't shown that he is.
His own appointees are saying he is corrupt. How is that not proof?
And you can read the transcript yourself - he specifically asked a foreign leader to investigate his political rival. How is that not corruption?
So let me get this straight, if I say there is proof he committed a crime you will say, "innocent until proven guilty" and if I say they are potential crimes, you say they aren't proven. Basically you've cooked the books to always give Trump a get out of jail free card.
No I'm saying if the Dems want to paint Trump as corrupt they better have a hell of a lot more than this...in fact they should have enough to indict and try the guy. Do that and you won't hear a peep from me. The point being people are way too willing to convict people based on media knowledge which is decidedly unreliable. And people like yourself that don't like him already because he doesn't line up politically with you are even more likely to think the worst of him.
In short, if you're going to accuse the president of corruption, have more than what you do now.
Shokin is only compromised if you believe the Obama administration who's corrupt as hell. They took out Shokin to protect themselves from his investigation of their corruption.
It was a conflict of interest because Shokin WAS investigating Burisma and that's WHY he was fired.
FYI: Biden is not only responsible for not being corrupt but it's his responsibility to recuse himself to avoid the PERCEPTION of a conflict of interest. He didn't.
Trump was acting as POTUS to investigate corruption from the former VP, NOT his political rival. Pretending that you can't investigate a candidate is the same BS Comey used as an excuse not to prosecute Hillary. You don't get to avoid corruption investigation just because you're running for office.
Nobody is claiming that Hunter did anything illegal unless he failed to register as a foreign lobbyist.
He took two or three children with him when he detonated the device didn’t he?
This is a political board you blithering idiot!
You sir are the sad one.
Pelosi and her team would have forewarned the guy.
Never mind him, he’s nothing more than a yes man for other posters.
This would be more than enough to convict him in court. You have the people who directly worked on the issues saying Trump did it. You have hard evidence supporting their statements (such as meeting dates and pulled funding).
I'm starting to think you're going with the Graham style of denial which is, "it started with second hand knowledge by the whistleblower and all the first hand knowledge that has come out since I won't read or listen to."
And of course those saying “Trump did it” would never lie.
If its more than enough, then indict him...convict him. until then, you're dealing in innuendo.
A number of things with this:
They are going through the process right now of building the case. But what it's showing is he clearly did what has been alleged.
As we saw with Mueller, there isn't a clear legal recourse against a president so saying, "indict and convict him," if you mean legally, may not be possible because of his position. Personally, I think it's a BS policy position, but it's honored by the DOJ who would be the lead attorneys.
I think you are misusing innuendo. Innuendo is not what you have until a conviction. Evidence is what we currently have, innuendo would be more internet rumors without evidence.
Tell me, do you think 1st hand accounts of his corruption are convincing? For instance, do you think a person who donated to Trump, was appointed by Trump, serves Trump, and was at the center of everything saying "I was in the room and the President was specifically tying the aid to investigations into the Bidens" is convincing?
1. Again, still alleged. While you may be ok with convicting someone in the press, not everyone is willing to make that leap.
2. That's a problem...I also agree its a BS policy position, but its one that hurts your position.
3. I don't agree that you have evidence of a crime...you have the media reporting what they want you to know. That doesn't rise to a reasonable standard, in my mind. Until its vetted in a court of law, you have accusations.
I find it interesting, yet not that compelling...there are way too many agendas and questionable motives here to be convinced of anything. That's why I rely on the courts to tell me what's BS and what isn't.
It’s not a crime. It’s called traditional foreign aid/policy.
Great, so the impeachment process is BS because it's not a court, and a court can't weigh in because the DOJ refuses to bring it. Seems like a perfect shield from ever having to condemn Trump on anything.
As for dismissing eye witness testimony corroborated by evidence and other witnesses, people are executed in the US for less, I don't see why removing a person from their job demands a higher standard.
Because it's the Fing President of the United States. Whether you like it or not, there's a higher standard when going after the leader of the free world.
But I disagree that people have been executed for less... people getting executed usually have DNA evidence or witnesses without political motive and/or forensics....probably all of the above. You don't have any of that. So, no, they don't get executed with less....they get executed with a hell of a lot more.
What I find interesting is that the bar of immunity seems to be higher for a non-president who's running for the highest office (see Hillary and Joe Biden) whom seem to be considered off limits when they're running for the office.
Actually they don't get executed "with a hell of a lot more". Do some research on how many of the people convicted are based heavily on eye witness testimony. Hell, a quick search pulled up a man convicted based on zero hard evidence and a questionable testimony from a single eye witness. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/may/15/carlos-texas-innocent-man-death
And I like that you are dismissing the witnesses for having "political motives". Who has a motive? Who are you claiming is lying under oath about what they saw and heard?
You have the hard evidence: transcripts, proof funding was withheld, texts and paper communications between key individuals
You have people close to the President and included in the conversations saying: I was on the call, I was in the discussions, I heard why, and I know who spoke directly with the President. You even have multiple people corroborating it so it's not one person's story. Almost all of them are either Republicans or career professionals. You even have them reporting the worries at the time it happened so it's not, "oh yeah, that happened a while ago, I didn't say anything but now I'm suddenly concerned."
This is about as open and shut as it gets. Even many in the GOP have largely conceded it happened by claiming the process is flawed and the action isn't impeachable (look at their witness list - how many on there are on there to refute the evidence provided by the witnesses?).
That is WAY more than enough to convict someone in a court.