The Impeachment Trial

[Watermelon]

No we can't have a conversation because you only look at your side of the story. By the way you use a typical liberal trick, when you can't answer the question or will look bad answering it you say the question is wrong and make up a question you think you can answer.


Politoco, New York Time, Fox News, and many other news sources and reporters.

Politoco, New York Time, Fox News, many other news sources and reporters, Obama, and government reporting.

Joe Biden (when he confessed on national TV), Hunter Biden (in an interview with ABC News), The state department, All of the 17 witnesses that appeared before the impeachment inquiry hearings where asked about the Bidens and Burisma, and All of them said that it was problematic.

There are some you missed to make sure you



What is warranted about Joe Biden getting Shokin fire when Shokin is investigating the corrupt company that his son is on the board of director on. The is Probable Cause to think that Joe Biden has a conflict of interest here a valid reason to investigate (This alone make Trump request to investigate what happened legitimate).

By the way my source for Burisma being corrupt comes again from witnesses in the impeachment trial along with many News sources.



You have done a good job at obfuscating the original question by making it appear that Trump asked about Joe Biden, He asked about Hunter Biden and what went on with Hunter, Joe is an ancillary subject because you thing that it might turn out to be an investigation of Joe. If that is the case you have justified Probable Cause because you beleave that there is enough there to spark that investigation.

You are wrong about it starting with Biden firing Shokins. If you want to get to the real question Its simple. Was there probable cause to look into Hunter Biden and Burisma. Hunter Biden told ABC that he probably only got the job because his last name was Biden. He admitted that he had no experience to be on the board. The Bidens have never make a case as to why Burisma hired Hunter or even what Hunter did as a Board member. It appears he make millions of dollars with out lifting a finger because he was the son of the VP of the U.S.A. Probable Cause leads to ask, the question "What compensation was Burisma looking for from the son of the VP that was incharge of looking at Ukraine and corruption, could it be that the corrupt Burisma was looking for a shield from an investigation?"

This alone is a legitimate reason for Trump to ask about Hunter Biden (Regardless of whether his father is running for President)
Remember No one is above the law. Not Hunter, Not Joe.

Your assertion that Biden had a legitimate reason to fire Shokin is irrelevant to the question that Trump asked. If there was Probable Cause to believe that there was something wrong with what Hunter Biden was involved in was Shady it is legitimate to ask about it. Probable Cause is the center peace of the Question Trump asked He said that it looked bad in the transcript (Motive) He also said that a lot of people in the US where wondering about Hunter and Burisma.

So to your point about Biden's legitimacy in releasing aid for firing Shokin, Trump is asking for information on Hunter and Burisma, because he has Probable Cause to believe that something is very shady going on. Probable Cause is what makes it legitimate regardless of Biden having a legitimate reason or not.

Now you put a lot of stake into motive and believe that Trumps motive is corrupt. What is your evidence that Trumps motives where corrupt. Please only list evidence that will hold up in court because hear say and assumption to motive is not true evidence.

I am not assorting and wrong doing on Biden's part because my presumption is that Trump's question only requires Probable Cause, so I don't need true evidence to prove my point. If you disagree show me where it requires any thing else.

Here is all I need:

Hunter Biden is on the board of directors of a corrupt company with ZERO ability to do the job, but makes millions of dollars any way. In Hunter own words he admitted that it was probable because he was Joe Biden's son. Joe Biden is point man for Ukraine. Looks Corrupt on the surface

Please stop trying to change the question. If your answer is Trump was wrong to ask Ukraine about Hunter Biden and Burisma because Joe Biden is running for President. Please explain to me why running for President make your son immune from some one looking into his possible corruption.

I would say if you asked for a specific out come like I want you to tell every one that Hunter Biden is corrupt that would be wrong. But that is not what Trump asked, he asked for them to look into it. Does running for President make your family above the law or immune to it. No One is Above the Law!

https://www.motherjones.com/impeachm...trump-ukraine/

[Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."]

Source - https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....amp/3785620002https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....3-db5a370481bchttps://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....001.html%3famp

[Watermelon]

You might want to read the federalist papers High Crimes and Misdemeanors is a phrase that denotes extreme crimes committed be a President. The framers specifically rejected the English notion that the prime minister can be removed for Malfeasance (i,e, he did something there parliament did not like). This make the President subservient to congress and destroys the Separation of Powers. This would make Congress the overriding power over Government doing as they please, regardless of what other Branches decide. This puts the leaders of the Senate and House of Representatives dictators lording it over the executive branch over policies that they differ on.

Removing a President for policies that are deemed bad for the people are handled by elections, the people decide what policies are best in elections it is not decided by the State Department or Congress or the Courts.


I find it interesting that Watermelon is talking about nobody being above the law, when he support the view that Joe and Hunter Biden are above the law because Joe is running for President in fact he believes Joe and Hunter are immune from any one even looking into their actions.

[Tassman]

Removing a President for policies that are deemed bad for the people are handled by elections, the people decide what policies are best in elections it is not decided by the State Department or Congress or the Courts.

I find it interesting that Watermelon is talking about nobody being above the law, when he support the view that Joe and Hunter Biden are above the law because Joe is running for President in fact he believes Joe and Hunter are immune from any one even looking into their actions.

If ANY American citizen is accused of being above the law then his alleged offenses are to be reviewed by the American justice system NOT by a foreign government.

[NorrinRadd]

Where was it "established" that it was "for a personal political favor"?

What is the response to the facts that --

-- The entire power of the Executive Branch is ultimately vested in the POTUS, and apart from Senate ratification of treaties, he alone is responsible for enacting foreign policy, and no law can supersede that Constitutional authority?

-- Even if that point is rejected, existing law required that POTUS do due diligence before releasing funds?

[rogue06]

Or a trial that allows for the House to prohibit the defense's lawyers to be present, to call witnesses or where the "judge" interrupts testimony to "clarify" what the witness means (not ask for clarification but to actually provide it for them) after colluding with the so-called "whistleblower" beforehand but then refuse to allow him to be questioned. Shiftless Andy Schiff

FIFY n/c

[rogue06]

Egad! You're a broken record RTT. Firstfloor just posted them for you, post #606, go back and read them if you're able.

Actually he provided the opinion of what someone "saw" in the Rorschach inkblot that is "abuse of power." The problem is that they aren't spelled out as is required. If they were you could and would simply point them out in the actual articles of impeachment rather than find an article where someone, as you said was (in his opinion) "able to decipher it."

[Cow Poke]

And if you want to continue to cry over spilled milk, that's your choice.

[Cow Poke]

Stay tuned, my friend. Stay tuned.

[oxmixmudd]

Stay tuned, my friend. Stay tuned.

Yes, as with any new despot, we can expect those that publicly have challenged him will find themselves in 'trouble' ...

[JimL]

So, the word "crime" doesn't really mean "crime". Must be fun to live in your world.



Sure.



The argument had been that a sitting president cannot be indicted, therefore, impeachment was the remedy.



And, again, the argument was that a sitting president cannot be indicted.

Impeachment is basically the same thing as an indictment as far as a president is concerned, but only for a president is "abuse of power" a relevant charge, and one can abuse their power without violating a codified law. Bribing and or extorting another country for personal political gain, or for anything else of value, is an abuse of power. Violating the Impoundment act in order to hide that abuse of power from Congress is another abuse of power, and that one is against the law, but only a law that pertains to the president.

[The Pendragon]

If the president had the Probable Cause to look into Hunter Biden then that is a legitimate reason to ask. The framers did not want Impeachment over purely political reasons. These are the facts that you keep ignoring.

Here is what you said in post #580 :

What you are saying is that Trump had a every reason to ask to look into Hunter Biden and Burisma. But the President is being Impeached because Joe Biden is running for President so it has to be a Political decision on Trumps part (Facts not in Evidence). Trump did not ask for an outcome, he did not Threaten to with hold aid if is wasn't done, and the only witness that accursed Trump of withholding aid until Zelensky make a statement admitted to congress that "no one told him that that was the case , that he just assumed that was what Trump wanted (i.e. He make it up on his own). This answers that political question.

So putting aside the facts not in evidence above it still remains that it was legitimate for the President to ask (i.e. Not Impeachable) the only deference in the to cases is one Joe Biden is running for President the other he is not and you contend that because Biden is running for President it is an impeachable offence this a crime because you can't looking the wrong doing of a some ones Son if that person is running for President making him above the law. You said in your post.

Of course you can always go with the House Managers defense of the Hilary getting Steal to dig up dirt on Trump. It is alright to ask another country to dig up dirt on you opponent if you payee for it (this argument was actually make before the senators in the Impeachment Trial by the House Managers).

Well Hunter Biden's issues with Burisma was asked to be looked into by Trump. No one has looked into Hunters problems because the Dems are taking up all the time on Impeachment. And by the way you admitted that the witnesses all said that their was a "conflict of interest" with Hunter Biden. I hope I can use that as you word on it because conflict of interest is valid cause for Trump to ask about Hunter. So we are still down to your saying that the Bidens are above that law. Or you are a mind reader and can tell me exactly what Trump had in mind.

[The Pendragon]

https://www.motherjones.com/impeachm...trump-ukraine/

[Without pressure from Joe Biden, European diplomats, the International Monetary Fund and other international organizations, Shokin would not have been fired, said Daria Kaleniuk, co-founder and executive director of the Anti Corruption Action Centre in Kiev.

"Civil society organizations in Ukraine were pressing for his resignation," Kaleniuk said, "but no one would have cared if there had not been voices from outside this country calling on him to go."]

Source - https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....amp/3785620002https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp....3-db5a370481bchttps://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www....001.html%3famp

I'll make this short for you Pam Bondie is my source. In her defense of the president at the Impeachment Trial. Its a little long but it supports what I have saying.
Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqsh...ature=emb_logo

[RumTumTugger]

I'll make this short for you Pam Bondie is my source. In her defense of the president at the Impeachment Trial. Its a little long but it supports what I have saying.
Source - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tqsh...ature=emb_logo

Not to mention she cites her sources as well.

oh and for those who want to see it here or are like JimL who are to lazy to use the link to youtube Pendragon put put in. I'll embed it here for you. The whole thirty minutes is a must see for those who are interested in the Truth.

[Tassman]

Actually he provided the opinion of what someone "saw" in the Rorschach inkblot that is "abuse of power." The problem is that they aren't spelled out as is required. If they were you could and would simply point them out in the actual articles of impeachment rather than find an article where someone, as you said was (in his opinion) "able to decipher it."

By withholding Congressionally appropriated funding until the Ukrainian president did Trump's bidding, Trump attempted to use a foreign government to influence the 2020 election. In doing so, he committed the highest crime: he attempted to deprive the people of the United States of their right to a free and fair election. This was established by the testimony of the House witnesses and would have been reinforced by the first-hand evidence of Bolton - i.e. if TRUTH was of any interest to the Senate or Trump's minion, McConnell..

[lilpixieofterror]

Yes, as with any new despot, we can expect those that publicly have challenged him will find themselves in 'trouble' ...