Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Yes everyone rush to protect Hunter Biden.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243661]Yes, this whole thing is over a [B]corruption case [/B]where the President asked to investigate corruption with the Bidens and Burisma. Hunter Biden is front and center of this entire issue.

You mean the Obama State Department said no corruption because Hunter Biden was on the board? Are you serious with this statement? A politically connected citizen then are not corruption targets...that happens to be a Son within the administration? The state department didn't investigate. Can we at least be honest in our discussion and not completely biased?

Sunnyside, so Don Jr working for an Oligrach within a corrupt nation is just fine? That would be ok...nothing to see?

Look at the timeline of events Ive posted...you are good with that?

Absurd is right.[/quote]

Corruption case - what corruption case is there that involves Hunter Biden? Burisma was "under investigation" before Hunter joined.

Trump saying he wanted Ukraine to announce and start an investigation into Hunter doesnt mean there was any actual corruption involving Hunter.

Corruption involving Hunter has never been articulated at all. The appearance of conflict of interest and him being susceptible to undue foreign influence is certainly there.

I personally wouldnt want a VP's son to be working for a foreign company bc he would be susceptible to foreign influence.

Yet to Trumpers ... "susceptible to foreign influence" is perfectly fine when it comes to the WH over ruling Kared Kushners denial of security clearance by the House Oversight Committee ..

She also reportedly told the committee that a background investigation into Kushner brought concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct and other business interests, according to the Post.

The issues raised by Kushner's background check were not made clear, but the Post reported in 2018 that foreign officials had allegedly discussed ways to influence Kushner by leveraging his business dealings and lack of foreign policy experience.

The United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico reportedly discussed such efforts, current and former officials told the paper.

The New York Times reported in February that Trump ordered Kushner be given top-secret security clearances despite concerns raised by the intelligence community. Cummings's memo did not mention Kushner or any other specific individuals, but Reuters reported Monday that Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, President Trump's daughter, are among the individuals who received clearance despite warnings from experts.
[url]https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437292-kushners-security-clearance-was-denied-due-to-concerns-of-foreign[/url]

--------------------

Its the hypocrisy from trumpers on the right and the far left that make this whole thing absurd to me. Hunter should have never been on that board, Ivanka/Jared should not be overridden by the intelligence community and given top secret clearance.

Bringing up Hunter's marriage and cocaine use? LOL ... dude, your trump guy has done way worse re moral character. How you can bring up a private citizens past and completely over look the parallel to the POTUS is ... astounding but sadly expected.

Chico ... you seem to be entrenched and bunkered down in your opinions. Thats your right but you seem to be yelling at people. IDk man ...

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=SunnySide;1243667]Corruption case - what corruption case is there that involves Hunter Biden? Burisma was "under investigation" before Hunter joined.

Trump saying he wanted Ukraine to announce and start an investigation into Hunter doesnt mean there was any actual corruption involving Hunter.

Corruption involving Hunter has never been articulated at all. The appearance of conflict of interest and him being susceptible to undue foreign influence is certainly there.

I personally wouldnt want a VP's son to be working for a foreign company bc he would be susceptible to foreign influence.

Yet to Trumpers ... "susceptible to foreign influence" is perfectly fine when it comes to the WH over ruling Kared Kushners denial of security clearance by the House Oversight Committee ..

She also reportedly told the committee that a background investigation into Kushner brought concerns regarding foreign influence, personal conduct and other business interests, according to the Post.

The issues raised by Kushner's background check were not made clear, but the Post reported in 2018 that foreign officials had allegedly discussed ways to influence Kushner by leveraging his business dealings and lack of foreign policy experience.

The United Arab Emirates, China, Israel and Mexico reportedly discussed such efforts, current and former officials told the paper.

The New York Times reported in February that Trump ordered Kushner be given top-secret security clearances despite concerns raised by the intelligence community. Cummings's memo did not mention Kushner or any other specific individuals, but Reuters reported Monday that Kushner and his wife, Ivanka Trump, President Trump's daughter, are among the individuals who received clearance despite warnings from experts.
[url]https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/437292-kushners-security-clearance-was-denied-due-to-concerns-of-foreign[/url]

--------------------

Its the hypocrisy from trumpers on the right and the far left that make this whole thing absurd to me. Hunter should have never been on that board, Ivanka/Jared should not be overridden by the intelligence community and given top secret clearance.

Bringing up Hunter's marriage and cocaine use? LOL ... dude, your trump guy has done way worse re moral character. How you can bring up a private citizens past and completely over look the parallel to the POTUS is ... astounding but sadly expected.

[B]Chico ... you seem to be entrenched and bunkered down in your opinions. Thats your right but you seem to be yelling at people. IDk man [/B]...[/quote]

Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, you cant circumvent the Constitution and electoral process because of partisanship. The threshold of crime was not met.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

So... the republicans best argument is, "lets not talk about the presidents corruption. let's shift the discussion to Hunter Biden's corruption." Even in the scenario where both Joe and Hunter Biden were found guilty of incredible corruption, it would not be OK for the President to hold up approved aid to Ukraine until that evidence was produced. That is an abuse of power for personal gain plain and simple.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243668]Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, you cant circumvent the Constitution and electoral process because of partisanship. The threshold of crime was not met.[/quote]

I honestly dont know enough about impeachment proceedings, I slept through Con Law I and II.

Clinton is the most recent and relevant. He wasnt impeached for any specific crime but for obstruction of justice and abuse of powers. Trump was impeached for ..... obstruction of justice and abuse of powers.

Clinton testified under oath to Ken Starr. Witnesses were called.

Trump should testify under oath and witnesses should be called.

Pelosi and the House should have issued subpoenas then went to the court to enforce those subpoenas, likely drawing out the process by a year or so. They shouldnt have expected a republican majority Senate to do additional fact finding.

Is this all a farce? Im kinda split. You cant have the POTUS with holding congress approved aid bc he wants a foreign country to announce an investigation into his rival. At the same time, it doesnt rise to the level of removing an elected president.

Hopefully Trump is out by 2020. If not, Ill put my head back in the sand for another 4 years.

[IMG]https://yenisoluk.com/uploads/2019/11/trump%20tweet.jpg[/IMG]

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Still have never heard any specifics about this corruption regarding Hunter Biden.

What specifically is he accused of doing?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1243670]So... the republicans best argument is, "lets not talk about the presidents corruption. let's shift the discussion to Hunter Biden's corruption." Even in the scenario where both Joe and Hunter Biden were found guilty of incredible corruption, it would not be OK for the President to hold up approved aid to Ukraine until that evidence was produced. That is an abuse of power for personal gain plain and simple.[/quote]

Agree. What Hunter did has no bearing on the impeachment. I do think it is clever though because it does severely damage Joe's campaign which I believe is the main reason they are bringing up Hunter Biden.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1243684]Agree. What Hunter did has no bearing on the impeachment. I do think it is clever though because it does severely damage Joe's campaign which I believe is the main reason they are bringing up Hunter Biden.[/quote]

Hunter Biden was the source of the corruption Trump sought out, correct? So if it found that indeed he was corrupt or laws were broken then vetting out corruption by the administration is justified.

So how is Hunter Biden not significant?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1243670]So... the republicans best argument is, "lets not talk about the presidents corruption. let's shift the discussion to Hunter Biden's corruption." Even in the scenario where both Joe and Hunter Biden were found guilty of incredible corruption, it would [B][B]not be OK for the President to hold up approved aid to Ukraine until that evidence was produced.[/B][/B] That is an abuse of power for personal gain plain and simple.[/quote]


Give me the source where the President laid out this conditions for aid

When you do, contact Adam Scheft and Nancy P. You are walking out theories not based on the evidence.

Can you answer, why wasn't criminal charges brought in the articles?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243685]Hunter Biden was the source of the corruption Trump sought out, correct? So if it found that indeed he was corrupt or laws were broken then vetting out corruption by the administration is justified.

So how is Hunter Biden not significant?[/quote]

Did Trump say hey investigate this that would be great or did he say hey investigate this or I will withhold funds, I think that is what is on trial in the senate here not whether a president has a right to seek out corruption.

FWIW I think discussing Hunter Biden and Burisma corruption is a smart move by Republicans. I genuinely think it makes Joe un-electable.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=BaltimoreSkins;1243690]Did Trump say hey investigate this that would be great or did he say hey investigate this or I will withhold funds, I think that is what is on trial in the senate here not whether a president has a right to seek out corruption.

FWIW I think discussing Hunter Biden and Burisma corruption is a smart move by Republicans. I genuinely think it makes Joe un-electable.[/quote]

I really don’t want Bernie...I think Biden in general wouldn’t be bad because he is woke now, but will pivot in the general election

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243685][B]Hunter Biden was the source of the corruption [/B]Trump sought out, correct? So if it found that indeed he was corrupt or laws were broken then vetting out corruption by the administration is justified.

So how is Hunter Biden not significant?[/quote]

What specifically did Hunter Biden do? What was the corruption?

If you say to get the prosecutor fired, that has been proven wrong. Joe, the US and international community wanted the prosecutor gone bc the prosecutor wasnt investigating and prosecuting.

Hunter Biden had nothing to do with whatever investigation was going on with Burisma. That investigation was going on before Hunter joined the board.

There is nothing linking Hunter to any corruption.

Trump just wanted Ukraine to announce they were opening an investigation into Hunter Biden for political reasons. He didnt care what for, he just wanted them to say it.

There is no there, there.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=SunnySide;1243696]What specifically did Hunter Biden do? What was the corruption?

If you say to get the prosecutor fired, that has been proven wrong. Joe, the US and international community wanted the prosecutor gone bc the prosecutor wasnt investigating and prosecuting.

Hunter Biden had nothing to do with whatever investigation was going on with Burisma. That investigation was going on before Hunter joined the board.

There is nothing linking Hunter to any corruption.

Trump just wanted Ukraine to announce they were opening an investigation into Hunter Biden for political reasons. He didnt care what for, he just wanted them to say it.

There is no there, there.[/quote]

Follow the timeline I’ve posted. No Hunter Biden wasn’t cleared and if he is the source and you want to call witnesses, then have him testify.
Would u be ok with that?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Why would hunter even be on the board? This wasn’t fedex, newspaper, etc.

This was a fucking corrupt Ukraine oligarch...why was hunter there? Access politically to the US government.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=SunnySide;1243675]
Pelosi and the House should have issued subpoenas then went to the court to enforce those subpoenas, likely drawing out the process by a year or so. They shouldnt have expected a republican majority Senate to do additional fact finding.
[/quote]

I agree, but they didn't exactly because no one wants this to drag out for a year in the courts... which, they wouldn't have to, if Trump were willing to cooperate like Clinton. Instead, he wants to prevent a constitutional process from being carried out b refusing to cooperate with the investigation. Which an innocent person would have no reason to do.

Still, when it all plays out, I think the Democrats may wish they have taken this approach.

But, as Jim Zorn once said, Hindsights always 50/50

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243698]Why would hunter even be on the board? This wasn’t fedex, newspaper, etc.

This was a fucking corrupt Ukraine oligarch...why was hunter there? Access politically to the US government.[/quote]

So, you're saying that, if one corrupt president suspects that his opponents son was guilty of corruption, he has a right to break the law to try and expose his opponent?

That's like getting arrested for robbing a bank and then arguing that it wasn't a crime because I was just trying to get back the fees i believed they illegally charged my account. Even if it were proven that I was right, and they did charge me illegal fees, it wouldn't justify my, more serious, criminal act.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243687]Give me the source where the President laid out this conditions for aid

When you do, contact Adam Scheft and Nancy P. You are walking out theories not based on the evidence.

Can you answer, why wasn't criminal charges brought in the articles?[/quote]

This is exactly what is supported by a lot of "second hand" evidence. Bolton is claiming he has first hand knowledge of this, which is why he needs to testify. Then, the Senate can determine whether he is telling the Truth.

If Trump is innocent of these accusations, he can produce documents to prove so. Instead, he's refused to cooperate and even bragged about the fact that he has the documents and isn't sharing them. Innocent men have nothing to hide. Only guilty people do.

The best thing for the American people is for ALL evidence to be provided, and ALL relevant witnesses to testify. Then, there will be two outcomes:

1) The President will be completely exonerated and the Democrats will have been proven to have engaged in an awful, damaging and divisive witch-hunt.
2) The President will be found guilty, and Republicans will have to decide whether or not to uphold their oath to the constitution or to be cowards.

In the end, the American people would know the truth about its politicians and make INFORMED decisions in upcoming elections.

Instead, what will happen is the full truth will never come out. It will just be a he-said/she-said situation and Americans on both sides will remain in whatever camps they already are, with both sides continuing to despise the other for their perceptions about how all of this played out. We won't learn anything. We won't move on. The country will continue to remain divided.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1243703]This is exactly what is supported by a lot of "second hand" evidence. Bolton is claiming he has first hand knowledge of this, which is why he needs to testify. Then, the Senate can determine whether he is telling the Truth.

If Trump is innocent of these accusations, he can produce documents to prove so. Instead, he's refused to cooperate and even bragged about the fact that he has the documents and isn't sharing them. Innocent men have nothing to hide. Only guilty people do.

The best thing for the American people is for ALL evidence to be provided, and ALL relevant witnesses to testify. Then, there will be two outcomes:

1) The President will be completely exonerated and the Democrats will have been proven to have engaged in an awful, damaging and divisive witch-hunt.
2) The President will be found guilty, and Republicans will have to decide whether or not to uphold their oath to the constitution or to be cowards.

In the end, the American people would know the truth about its politicians and make INFORMED decisions in upcoming elections.[/quote]

IF X IS INNOCENT HE MUST PROVE IT

the law of the land?

I thought it was - IF THE STATE BELIEVES X IS GUILTY THE BURDEN LIES ON THEM TO PROVE IT. The STATE could have called witnesses and gotten their testimony into the legal record. They could have, as is done in EVERY court in the land, issued subpoenas, and defend the subpoenas validity in front of the court, and then, once validated, brought the case to trial.

Arguments are so out of whack with our ideal of justice, all because one side hates the other, AND the other is an idiot.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Furthermore, I go back to if you assume the absolute worst that additional evidence and witnesses for the STATE would show that a President, while acting within a generally recognized US policy(rooting out corruption) sought to make aid also contigent on specific actions that would also provide political gain -

as a quick aside - an impeachable offense to me would be PROOF that a President aided a foreign country changing or tampering with official electronic ballots. If Trump or anyone did that, it would be Treason.

- but in the end, let's even say Trump dastardly scheme worked, and an investigation was announced. At best Trump would have a talking point. So we are going to impeach and kick out a president over attempting to gain talking point advantages.

And who was going to buy this talking point? Democrats, who hate Trump and voted for Hillary?, Republicans (80%+ who support Trump), seriously the political capital that this "talking point" might have gained is simply not an election breaker.

It's ridiculous on it's face

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243697]Follow the timeline I’ve posted. No Hunter Biden wasn’t cleared and if he is the source and you want to call witnesses, then have him testify.
Would u be ok with that?[/quote]

The timeline you posted doesnt show any link to Hunter Biden and corruption. What that shows is that he was hired by a company that was being investigated for corruption before he was hired.

You say "Hunter Biden is the source of the corruption" .. but have 0 facts or evidence to point. Who did Hunter Biden collude with? what was he after? ... theres nothing except he was hired by a company accused of corruption before he got there.

If there is something more, Id love to see it.

Trump: "I want you to announce that you are investigating Hunter Biden."

Ukraine: "Yes sir, ... for what exactly?"

Trump: "I dont care make it up, just say the words 'Hunter Biden' and 'corruption' and 'investigation' in the same sentence."

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=SunnySide;1243716]The timeline you posted doesnt show any link to Hunter Biden and corruption. What that shows is that he was hired by a company that was being investigated for corruption before he was hired.

You say "Hunter Biden is the source of the corruption" .. but have 0 facts or evidence to point. Who did Hunter Biden collude with? what was he after? ... theres nothing except he was hired by a company accused of corruption before he got there.

[B]If there is something more, Id love to see it. [/B]

Trump: "I want you to announce that you are investigating Hunter Biden."

Ukraine: "Yes sir, ... for what exactly?"

Trump: "I dont care make it up, just say the words 'Hunter Biden' and 'corruption' and 'investigation' in the same sentence."[/quote]

I suppose that would be why Hunter Biden, Joe Biden would be effective witnesses.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

Failure to properly investigate Burisma Holdings

In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.[33][34]

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".[22] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[33]

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[35][36] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

In a sworn affidavit dated 4 September 2019,[37] for a European court, Shokin testified that "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."[38] Shokin wrote the affidavit in support of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.[39] John Herbst, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, said that Shokin's support of Firtash, who had been arrested for bribery in 2014, undercuts Shokin's claims to be motivated by transparency.[40][41]

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[29][42][43] However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[44][45]

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[46] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[47] US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump.
[url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin[/url]

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/22/us/politics/biden-ukraine-trump.html[/url]

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243722]I suppose that would be why Hunter Biden, Joe Biden would be effective witnesses.[/quote]

Wanting the Bidens to testify is just a ploy to muddy the waters and steer this farther in the absurd, imo.

Ive spent a good bit on this thread today .... and have achieved absolutely zero. We are all tribal.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1243724]Wanting the Bidens to testify is just a ploy to muddy the waters and steer this farther in the absurd, imo.



Ive spent a good bit on this thread today .... and have achieved absolutely zero. We are all tribal.[/QUOTE]Here is the thing, maybe it does muddy the waters but as the defense/accused the president should be given every opportunity to defend himself and call witnesses that make his case, and part of his case includes whether or not it can be legitimately argued that Biden and Burisma have direct relevance to Trump's asking Ukraine to investigate.

Rights of the ACCUSED are what fair trials are supposed to preserve and safeguard.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243735]Here is the thing, maybe it does muddy the waters but as the defense/accused the president should be given every opportunity to defend himself and call witnesses that make his case, and part of his case includes whether or not it can be legitimately argued that Biden and Burisma have direct relevance to Trump's asking Ukraine to investigate.

Rights of the ACCUSED are what fair trials are supposed to preserve and safeguard.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

Im with you ... Im 100% fine with Bidens, Trump, Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton testifying under oath.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=SunnySide;1243742]Im with you ... Im 100% fine with Bidens, Trump, Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton testifying under oath.[/QUOTE]

Edit: i realize this is a little moving the bars fallacy, but it is extending the thought of what is a "fair trial"

- in a "real trial"(which this is not) suppose the ACCUSED(president) feels that the STATE(house managers) did not meet their burden of proof and rejects additional witnesses, in a regular trial a JUDGE/JURORS (senators) can't and would not ask for more prosecution witnesses, that would be generally seen as an unfair trial.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243668]Look, like I said before, I kept quiet and waited for the house investigation but when the articles were draft without a crime...then I absolutely knew this entire thing was bullshit. Nancy knew she had gone too far and couldn't turn around so she had to do something.

Im not yelling, but I'm sorry, [B]you cant circumvent the Constitution[/B] and electoral process [B]because of partisanship[/B]. The threshold of crime was not met.[/quote]

What is... ignoring your Constitutional duty to act as an impartial juror so you can join the POTUS defense team for 1000 Alex?

I'm not gonna defend Hunter Biden, but your nepotism argument on the Bidens rings hollow when multiple Presidential advisors got their positions due to nepotism, and Trump had to override the intelligence community giving them the veto on the background check to get there.

And I can only agree with Sunnyside so much, I am happily bringing in the Bidens if it means members of the EO have to testify too.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=SunnySide;1243716]The timeline you posted doesnt show any link to Hunter Biden and corruption. What that shows is that he was hired by a company that was being investigated for corruption before he was hired.

You say "Hunter Biden is the source of the corruption" .. but have 0 facts or evidence to point. Who did Hunter Biden collude with? what was he after? ... theres nothing except he was hired by a company accused of corruption before he got there.

If there is something more, Id love to see it.

Trump: "I want you to announce that you are investigating Hunter Biden."

Ukraine: "Yes sir, ... for what exactly?"

Trump: "I dont care make it up, just say the words 'Hunter Biden' and 'corruption' and 'investigation' in the same sentence."[/quote]

Go back now and look at testimony as well as interviews within the Obama administration that had serious problems with hunter Biden involved in a corrupt oligarchs company who came to the executive branch from the state department and were told to fuck off.

Hunter Biden is the guy liberals want don Jr to be...but look at the track record.

What a piece of shit, garbage human being.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=mooby;1243751]What is... ignoring your Constitutional duty to act as an impartial juror so you can join the POTUS defense team for 1000 Alex?

I'm not gonna defend Hunter Biden, but your nepotism argument on the Bidens rings hollow when multiple Presidential advisors got their positions due to nepotism, and Trump had to override the intelligence community giving them the veto on the background check to get there.

And I can only agree with Sunnyside so much, I am happily bringing in the Bidens if it means members of the EO have to testify too.[/quote]

Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243753]Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater[/quote]

How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

I'm retiring from this thread or any political thread. We all are who we are. No minds are being changed here. And it's probably a good thing an internet thread doesn't make us waffle.

I genuinely like every one that post on this site regularly. Look forward to talking about th Skins, music, tv, etc.


HTTR!

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=mooby;1243755]How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?[/quote]

I've said it before I'm all for it:thumbsup:

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243753]Mooby, you seriously gonna play this card? You think the house was impartial on the dems side? Please. Especially since many since have commented this is about the election and not impeachment. It’s all bullshit and political theater[/quote]

Not what he said or asked ?

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=mooby;1243755]How about this Chico. We settle, and allow the Presidential defense to call any witnesses they'd like, and subpoena any documents they'd like, to use in their defense.

In return, the prosecution also gets to subpoena their witnesses and documents, and the Executive Office can't hide behind whatever bullshit excuse they have not to produce the documents or the people that will supposedly prove their innocence.

And the entire Senate has to uphold their commitment to be impartial jurors. That seems fair, right?[/quote]

The problem with this approach is that the Republicans have said they want to call Hunter and Joe Biden, who have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the president. The only relevant witnesses are those with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions, which the Biden's don't have. Therefore, calling them as witnesses would only be a distraction, and turn this thing to even more of a circus.

So ultimately, I agree that both sides should be able to call witnesses - but not ANY witnesses - Democrats and Republicans would both have to demonstrate how the witness is believed to have direct knowledge of Trumps alleged withholding of aid as part of a quid pro quo and subsequent obstruction. Witnesses without direct knowledge should not be allowed.

Now, if it is believe the Bidens have broken any laws, those should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly - but not part of this hearing.

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

I have another discussion question?

We all assume Bolton would confirm the NYT report.

Hypothetically, let's assume his testimony and his book are admitted into evidence, and the NYT got it wrong and Bolton testifies there was no linkage. Would that be enough proof to end the trial and acquit?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=BigHairedAristocrat;1243810]The problem with this approach is that the Republicans have said they want to call Hunter and Joe Biden, who have absolutely nothing to do with the charges against the president. The only relevant witnesses are those with first-hand knowledge of the President's actions, which the Biden's don't have. Therefore, calling them as witnesses would only be a distraction, and turn this thing to even more of a circus.

So ultimately, I agree that both sides should be able to call witnesses [B]- but not ANY witnesses [/B]- Democrats and Republicans would both have to demonstrate how the witness is believed to have direct knowledge of Trumps alleged withholding of aid as part of a quid pro quo and subsequent obstruction. Witnesses without direct knowledge should not be allowed.

Now, if it is believe the Bidens have broken any laws, those should be investigated and prosecuted accordingly - but not part of this hearing.[/quote]

You know there isn't some fucking rule against this right? Its a BHA Rule...lol. Just your rule of "I don't want Hunter Biden to be call because I know he is a corrupt piece of shit"...lololol its truly hilarious.

BHA, once again saying FUCK Due Process. Its really amazing just how far liberals have come. They hate the freedom of speech, they hate freedom of religion...and due process now.

The whistle blower would be first up on the witness list. Also its amazing that so called transparency seekers haven't spoken up about letting the behind closed testimony of the whistle blower become part of the record. once again circumventing due process

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

[quote=CRedskinsRule;1243812]I have another discussion question?

We all assume Bolton would confirm the NYT report.

Hypothetically, let's assume his testimony and his book are admitted into evidence, and the NYT got it wrong and Bolton testifies there was no linkage. Would that be enough proof to end the trial and acquit?

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk[/quote]

No, Trumps defense has already argued that a POTUS asking foreign governments to interfere in our elections should not be an impeachable offence. Republicans will agree and acquit because they know the vast sea their Trump loyalist base would not re-elect them if they turn on Trump. This really is all about the power of the Cult of Trump and how many Republican politicians - most of whom HATED Trump and opposed his presidential bid until he became the nominee - have no spine whatsoever.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[quote=Chico23231;1243813]You know there isn't some fucking rule against this right? Its a BHA Rule...lol. Just your rule of "I don't want Hunter Biden to be call because I know he is a corrupt piece of shit"...lololol its truly hilarious.

BHA, once again saying FUCK Due Process. Its really amazing just how far liberals have come. They hate the freedom of speech, they hate freedom of religion...and due process now.

The whistle blower would be first up on the witness list. Also its amazing that so called transparency seekers haven't spoken up about letting the behind closed testimony of the whistle blower become part of the record. once again circumventing due process[/quote]

its not my rule. If you are on trial for committing a crime, lets say, stealing a camo jacket from Walmart that you plan to use when spying on the scientology headquarters. You don't have the right to call Tom Cruise to testify in the case because you think Scientology is up to something shady. Tom Cruise may be up to something shady, but it has nothing to do with your theft of the Jacket, so its not relevant to YOUR case and has no bearing on your guilt or innocence.

What relevance does ANYTHING Hunter Biden has ever done have to do with whether the presidents actions are legal? Unless he was in contact with Trump and witnessed any of Trumps actions here, he's no more relevant a witness than you or me.

Also, I agree, the whistleblower SHOULD be called to testify as they, unlike Hunter Biden, clearly have relevance to the case.

Re: trump Inpeachment...............
 

[QUOTE=BigHairedAristocrat;1243818]its not my rule. If you are on trial for committing a crime, lets say, stealing a camo jacket from Walmart that you plan to use when spying on the scientology headquarters. You don't have the right to call Tom Cruise to testify in the case because you think Scientology is up to something shady. Tom Cruise may be up to something shady, but it has nothing to do with your theft of the Jacket, so its not relevant to YOUR case and has no bearing on your guilt or innocence.



What relevance does ANYTHING Hunter Biden has ever done have to do with whether the presidents actions are legal? Unless he was in contact with Trump and witnessed any of Trumps actions here, he's no more relevant a witness than you or me.



Also, I agree, the whistleblower SHOULD be called to testify as they, unlike Hunter Biden, clearly have relevance to the case.[/QUOTE]The question about Hunter Biden is relevant because the house managers claim that there was 0 justification for a request to investigate, which goes to motive.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Re: trump Impeachment...............
 

Maybe the senate should vote to send it back to the house to do more investigation. I do believe it sets a terrible precedent for the House to fast track impeachment hearings.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk