If Biden did what he bragged about doing, that would constitute an abuse of office as the Vice President. Being a rival candidate doesn't make any abuses and law breaking by him while VP above the law. Trump asked Zelenskyy to coordinate with the US Attorney General, NOT his campaign. If Biden didn't then there may be a case for political gain. But we won't know unless the Senate investigates during Trumps trial in the Senate. Testimony from the Biden's, Chris Heinz and Devon Archer as well as depositions by Zelensky and Shokin will be key to determining whether Trump was legitimately going after corruption or seeking to damage a political rival.
Sure...envoys with official State titles...not personal 'lawyers' who work under the radar and make secret deals with civilian businessmen & foreign nationals for political gain & personal business interests. If nothing wrong or unlawful was committed, then why all the secrecy, stonewalling, cover-up, resistance to subpoenas, unwarranted smear campaigns, unwarranted firings, perjuries, obstruction of justice, refusal to submit documents/transcripts, witness tampering & intimidation, and so on? Is this how innocent people behave? You mean he couldn't even trust the very same officials he appointed? So you're admitting Trump sees himself not as a thoughtful, concerned, unifying representative of the people & the nation, but as a dictator. Trump has a long track record of impeachable offenses. The Articles of Impeachment were earlier drawn up in 2017, so this is not the first time the motion to impeach Trump has been made during his Presidency. But let's say the Ukraine call was Trump's only violation. This is still impeachable because he's abusing Presidential power for personal gain: (1) He used tax payer money for personal political gain by withholding aide earmarked by Congress to a foreign nation in need as a means of forcing the foreign leader to perform a personal 'favor'. (2) He deliberately circumvented the scrutiny of relevant agencies & intelligence officials by employing the services of non-State officials, not as a matter of national security, but for personal political gain. (3) He ordered his call records to be stored in a secret server because he knew he was violating a law, and continues to resist the Justice Dept. & House Intelligence requests. Certainly, this, plus a laundry list of additional violations, is more than enough to warrant removal from office. And, (4) he has attempted to hinder the impeachment inquiry by witness tampering and intimidation, calling for the subpoenaed to not show up, attempting to fire investigators, and bribing Congressmen who agree to oppose impeachment. Keep in mind also that several of Trump's aides (Stone, Flynn, Cohen, Manafort, Papadopoulos) have spent time in or are still in prison, and more are under investigation for possible indictment. All the while, Trump skates...but only because he's the Prez...not because he's innocent. Remember what Mueller said when asked if he would charge the President Trump if he were not in office? He said, "Yes." Rather than pretending Trump committed no impeachable offenses, Trump's staunchest supporters should instead admit he committed multiple violations, but that they don't care and will still support him. As silly as it may seem...at least they'll be honest.
First, this is all irrelevant to Trump's impeachment case. A bank robber can't hold the bank's security guard accountable for preventing him from stealing the money. Second, Biden was happy about having the Ukrainian prosecutor removed, not because he was investigating, or even about to investigate Burisma, but because he wasn't aggressive enough in battling corruption in his country. Not only was there pressure from the State Dept. & WH, but there was also international pressure from the EBRD, IMF, EU and others to have Shokin removed. Biden bragged about it because, after a lot of resistance, the Ukrainian President promptly removed Shokin only after the Obama admin. threatened to withhold $1 billion in aide. (1) Barr's handling of the Mueller report demonstrates he would be an ally to Trump, and aid in covering up any shady dealings on Trump's part. He even has a notorious nickname attached to him: "Back in 1992, the last time Bill Barr was U.S. attorney general, iconic New York Times writer William Safire referred to him as “Coverup-General Barr” because of his role in burying evidence of then-President George H.W. Bush’s involvement in “Iraqgate” and “Iron-Contra.”" https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/03/26/has-cover-general-william-barr-struck-again “If you want a presidential cover-up, Barr is your guy,” Brosnahan, now 85, told VICE News. “And I think we’ve already seen that.” https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/...een-accused-of-a-presidential-cover-up-before (2) If there's nothing wrong or shady about involving the AG, then why didn't Barr admit to being asked by Trump to investigate the Bidens? https://twitter.com/SenKamalaHarris/status/1123705902069112832 "I asked Attorney General Barr in May: did the White House ever ask him to investigate anyone? He wouldn't answer. Barr needs to come back to Congress and answer that question again. Under oath. This time, he better have an answer." — Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 25, 2019 https://www.vox.com/2019/9/25/20883...odymyr-zelensky-whistleblower-ukraine-scandal Again, Biden's business in the Ukraine has nothing to do with Trump's violations regarding the Ukraine call, because (1) Trump had zero interest in rooting out Ukrainian corruption, and was only interested in Biden & the 2016 election investigation announcement by Zelenskyy, and (2) Trump became interested in investigating Biden only after Biden announced his bid for the Presidency. None of the above mentioned names are relevant other than perhaps Zelenskyy's deposition since the Ukraine call was between Trump and Zelenskyy. But would Zelenskyy tell the truth? Who knows. If Zelenskyy felt pressured, would he finally admit it at the deposition? I don't know. And again, as many have stated before...Trump had ZERO interest in clearing the corruption in the Ukraine. He never once mentioned the top Ukrainian oligarchs at the heart of Ukrainian corruption. He was only interested in the "big stuff"...that is, Biden and Crowdstrike...of which an investigation announcement would benefit Trump's 2020 campaign bid.
You are woefully mis-informed and posting a bunch of Bull*&^%. Don't worry it will all come out in the Senate Trial if the House impeaches Trump.
No they don't always have special titles and have been lawyers. Again you may not like the policy but nothing impeachable. No. No. Again youvmay not like the policy but not impeachable. Quote him saying that because he had a duty to bring any charges to the Attorney General. The only pretending is by you.
Ukraine is a bottomless-pit of some of the worse varieties of corruption seen anywhere in the world. These didn't begin with Burisma, and they certainly won't end with Burisma. Kiev is a burial ground for many hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. "aid", and that was true under Obama, just as it is under Trump. The biggest difference? The Democrats (lead by Geriatric Joe Biden) found a nifty way to enrich family members at the same time! But who's mostly to blame in the incredibly STOOPID giveaway of money WE DON'T HAVE to the already stupendously wealthy, corrupt oligarchs of Ukraine...? It's our own CONGRESS, which votes to give your money away in the first place -- both to Ukraine and to the IMF (which is just another backdoor conduit for YOUR money to Kiev).... You may enjoy this little view into the political cesspool that is Ukraine. Here's the guy who OWNS the current Ukraine president, former TV star and comedian, Volodymyr Zelenskiy : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ihor_Kolomoyskyi
NO.. Biden's mission was to support economic development and independence in Ukraine and to support their efforts to root out corruption. That was US Foreign Policy. That's why Joe Biden made more than 7 trips to Ukraine.
Oh, this is good! The only "economic development" that Geriatric Joe created in Ukraine was even MORE wealth for Ukraine's incredibly rich, incredibly corrupt oligarchs -- plus, a little under-the-table 'mad-money' for his cocaine-huffing child! C'mon, Margot... you are one of the brighter people who post here. You KNOW better than to think that Biden's 'mission' was anything other than for political and bald 'familial' opportunism.... Think: Hunter Biden goes from being thrown out of the Navy Reserves one year for testing positive for cocaine -- and a year later he's 'landed' a job on the board of a Ukrainian energy corporation's board making over $50K a MONTH?! What a coincidence!
(1) Wouldn't Shokin, who was removed with pressure from Biden (on behalf of Obama), want to make this claim as revenge? (2) Does Shokin, who was known to be very corrupt by both international entities & the Ukrainian Parliament, have any credibility? (3) FOX's article states: "Fox News obtained a copy of Giuliani’s notes from his January 2019 interview with fired Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in which he claimed that his “investigations stopped out of fear of the United States.”" Really? You expect us to believe THREE sources that have zero credibility: FOX, Giuliani, and Shokin?? This whole issue with the Bidens & Burisma originated from Giuliani himself. That's why he pushed it so intensely. And... "Shokin also claimed, according to the notes, that Ambassador Marie L. Yovanovitch denied him visa travel to the U.S., and claimed it was because “she is close to Mr. Biden.”" Really? Does this sound like something Yovanovitch would ever say? A woman with impeccable credentials & decades of professional service to Presidents of both parties, being accused by a very corrupt individual to play favorites? (Even FOX News praised her in an article - https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/don...rie-yovanovitch-is-a-heroine-wrongly-attacked) Shokin's claim against Yovanovitch is not surprising, though: "Yovanovitch was respected within the national security community for her efforts to encourage Ukraine to tackle corruption,[25] and during her tenure had sought to strengthen the Ukrainian National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which had been created to bolster efforts to fight corruption in Ukraine; these efforts earned Yovanovitch some enemies within the country.[26] In a March 2019 speech to the Ukraine Crisis Media Center, Yovanovitch said that the Ukrainian government was not making sufficient progress to combat corruption, saying: "It is increasingly clear that Ukraine's once-in-a-generation opportunity for change has not yet resulted in the anti-corruption or rule of law reforms that Ukrainians expect or deserve."[27]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Yovanovitch Is it surprising that Giuliani and his associates (who had business interests in the Ukraine), and later, Trump (who had business & political interests), wanted her removed immediately? (4) What Poroshenko & Soboliev stated to reporter, Simon Ostrovsky, contradicts FOX's article. Why talking to Ukrainian officials disproves the Trump narrative on Biden Simon Ostrovsky: I'm here in Kiev to speak to Ukrainians who were key players in the lead-up to the dismissal of prosecutor general Shokin to find out if Trump's theory about why he was fired holds any water. I started with the man who then at the top, Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko, who personally faced the pressure from Biden to dismiss his own prosecutor. He told me it was never about Biden or his son's business with Burisma. Petro Poroshenko: We are talking only about the reform of the prosecutor office, to make it independent, to make it more transparent. Simon Ostrovsky: What Soboliev did was ask members of Parliament to sign a document calling for a no-confidence vote in Shokin. So, you're saying it wasn't Joe Biden who asked for the prosecutor to be fired; you asked for the prosecutor to be fired first? Yehor Soboliev: Yes, we were campaigning for his resignation more than half-a-year. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/w...icials-disproves-the-trump-narrative-on-biden If true, this tells us nothing about Biden's involvement with it. Let's assume Burisma was corrupt. Wouldn't a corrupt company want to employ a Biden just for his name & connections? Would Hunter Biden have a need to know that he was being used by the company as a leveraging tool? Wouldn't it be a good tactic for the company to want to invoke Biden's name as a means to discourage an investigation? It would make sense...particularly since no wrongdoing has yet been substantiated regarding the Bidens & Burisma. Also, Devon Archer joined Burisma before Hunter Biden, and was a long-time business partner of Hunter Biden...so it's possible he had a hand in getting Biden a seat on the board of Burisma. Yeah...probably by demanding witnesses who are irrelevant because the GOP's focus is only Biden and not Trump's abuse of power. And are we going to hear from Devin Nunes too...and what about Giuliani, Pompeo, Barr, Perry, Parnez, Fruman, Bolton, Volker (again), and Mulvaney? Yermak would be a good witness too. And is Trump brave enough to testify? Of course not, nor would his cronies want to take the risk of him incriminating himself...which he definitely would. Giuliani has already incriminated himself and others, and he's not even testified yet!
And again, like I said...if Trump did nothing wrong, then why all the secrecy, cover-up, resistance to subpoenas, refusal to hand over internal documents, unwarranted smear campaigns, firings & resignations, witness tampering/intimidation, and lying? And not just him, but his cronies can't answer a straight question either.
It's called separation of powers and protecting the Presidency. He released the transcript of the call. And throwing the spaghetti against the wall to see if you can get something to stick is about the least convincing argument you could make. Stick with the impeachment.
"Protecting the Presidency"? From what? Being exposed for what he is and has been doing? What about protecting the nation's people from corruption & abuse of power? What about doing what's best for all citizens, for the environment, for all life forms, rather than what's best for Trump & the ultra-rich? The call-transcript was released only thanks to the whistleblower coming forward. The public wouldn't be the wiser if it were not for the whistleblower. The rough transcipt was not verbatim, nor complete...but what it contained was enough to back up the whistleblower's complaint. Later, both the call-transcript's implications & the whistleblower's complaint were confirmed by the career civil servants who testified as first-hand witnesses at the House impeachment hearings. The whistleblower's identity and second-hand information became no longer an issue...yet the GOP keeps beating the "identify & subpoena the whistleblower" drum. "Stick to the impeachment"? Have you not read anything I wrote? I'm not the one who wants to subpoena the testimony of individuals who are irrelevant to Trump's abuse of power, nor the one who is in denial of Trump's long history of corruption, nor the one who blindly defends Trump only to ensure one's re-election to Congress. I only state facts, and then use those facts to make logical inferences. No different than the way any investigation is carried out. The facts are clear regarding Trump's guilt in abusing his Presidential powers. The Senate GOP's blind 'loyalty' to Trump (actually, their own jobs) notwithstanding, the only thing standing in the way is the OLC (Office of Legal Counsel) ruling that: "The indictment or criminal prosecution of a sitting President would unconstitutionally undermine the capacity of the executive branch to perform its constitutionally assigned functions." It's these kind of bullsh!t rulings that prevented Mueller from charging & indicting Trump on 10 counts of obstruction of justice, connections to Russian 2016 interference, and other offenses...and why he stated that, yes, Trump can be charged if he were not in office (which is why Trump's bid for re-election is critical to him). And of course, AG Barr's handling and white-wash 'summary' of the Mueller report didn't help either.
According to records Hunter was paid around 80k per month. He worked there for 3 years. That's a little under 3 million. Way lower than 16.5 million....
.......OR he was setting up his son to launder US Aid money. Who knows till it's investigated by Barr.
Your claim: "The only "economic development" that Geriatric Joe created in Ukraine was even MORE wealth for Ukraine's incredibly rich, incredibly corrupt oligarchs -- plus, a little under-the-table 'mad-money' for his cocaine-huffing child!" History tells Hitler's story, but it's you here telling a story about current events. If you can't prove your claim of such egregious behavior on the part of Joe or Hunter Biden, then you're full of it and have no credibility. Name these Ukrainian oligarchs that were aided by Biden, and give us the specifics about that aid, or admit that you're making stuff up or regurgitating right wing rhetoric with no basis in fact.
Happy to help! Links: https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/2...he-prosecutor-investigating-his-sons-company/ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joe-bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-navy-cocaine-n227811 https://www.businessinsider.com/hun...kraine-involvement-with-trump-giuliani-2019-9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_oligarchs Now, if the billion (or so) that Geriatric Joe imperiously gave the billionaire oligarchs in Kiev did so much good, why are they still 'on the take' for as much more as they can milk out of our Congress right up to this year?! Ukraine is a bottomless pit that we can never fill up with enough American money! Now, were you going to provide us all with some proof that Hitler actually personally killed anybody, or are you "making stuff up or regurgitating ... rhetoric with no basis in fact"...? . "If they're stupid enough to go on dishing it, I'LL TAKE IT!"
From Congress abusing IT'S power. The people have not been subjected to corruption and abuse of power. And it is Trump who wants to investigate a blatant probable cause of corruption and the Democrats want to impeach him for it to protect Biden. It was released because it supports Trump and why the Democrats tried to avoid it at all cost during the impeachment hearings. Zelensky AGAIN said in interviews this weekend that military aid was NEVER discussed and there was no quid pro quo. And yes the whistleblower and who colluded with him and when is still an issue that needs to come forward but the Democrats are going to protect their own. And the witnessess could not confirm anything other than the Lt. Col. who testified he thought one word of no consequence was wrong, that the four other transcribers had got it wrong. PROSECUTION. During the Clinton investigation the Office of Independent Counsel brought the CHARGES of FELONIES to the House for consideration of impeachment and removal so that office could THEN prosecute. 8 felony charges were presented to the House. From those CHARGES of FELONIES came the three articles of impeachment. The Senate Democrats said those FELONIES did not rise to the level of impeachment and removal. The indictments were held until the day Clinton was leaving office and then Independent Counsel Ray went to the White House and informed the President he was prepared to issue them and allowed Clinton to plea bargain the charges. Mueller had a duty to report any criminal acts his office determined had occurred to the Attorney General. He reported NONE and then tried to instill this idea that he had some but could not report them. That was utter nonsense, why even have the investigation then. The AG and the Deputy AD and the Office of Legal Counsel reviewed the findings and they found no crimes. It was a total bust and even with Mueller's testimony the Dems could still find no crimes or misdemeanors on which to impeach.
