Bolten says trump wanted the aid frozen until he had answers to inquires sought

[Mountain Man]

Wrong, the defense is treating the Senate and you supporters of Trump, like you're a bunch of dummies.

I'm sure Charles, Sam, and oxmixmudd will be along at any moment to chastise you for posting insults instead of substantive arguments. Better watch it, cause those guys mean business!

[Mountain Man]

Heck, UKraine never even announced the investigation and look how much mileage he's getting out of it in terms of casting aspersion's on Biden.

Maybe if Joe wasn't on video openly bragging about it then it would have all gone away.

[oxmixmudd]

That's not an answer to my post.

Actually, it is. There is on this opera revolving around Trumps attempt to extort Ukraine a continuously moving target in terms of what the opera is really about, with those supporting Trump constantly shifting what target actually means Trump has earned impeachment. When this started, few would claim that IF Trump did try to extort Ukraine it would be a bad thing. But the arguments were all aimed at showing the accused actions never took place. Once it was clear they took place, it shifted to why he did them. Now that it's clear he did them for exactly the reason stated, we are at the point the conservative pundits are now pretending maybe it is not so bad after all if a president tries to get a foreign actor to interfere in our election process.

And the answer is - yes, it's a very, very bad thing. It is something the founding fathers were very concerned about and that they devoted a good deal of thought to preventing.

For a president to willingly seek that out is the quintessential impeachable act. It is THE reason impeachment exists. To keep a rougue president from abusing his power in a manner that creates a threat to the country or the I integrity of thevoffice. of the country. The president is undermining and corrupting one of the most critical elements to the stability of our government - the authenticity of the vote.

[Sparko]

We've been over this countless times: Biden's threat to withhold aid was official government policy, supported by Obama, the international community, and Republican senators. Biden received no personal benefit from the policy decision and action, especially not one at the cost of national security.

No, this was an on-the-fly decision by Biden. He just up and extorted the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor or they were not getting money. That he invoked Obama in that decision makes it worse. Either extortion is wrong no matter how many people agree to it, or withholding money til you get a result you want from a foreign country is not extortion.

It is the same thing they are accusing Trump of.

And the question is - did Biden do it for personal gain? It sure looks like it since his son was the object of the investigation.

Trump's decision was made for personal gain, as explained by his personal attorney who told Zelensky in May that he was coming to make these investigation requests for Trump explicitly in a personal capacity and not as part of his presidential duties. Trump withheld government resources so that he could receive a personal benefit, information or publicity against a political opponent, and he did go through with withholding the aid for several months, causing Ukraine to schedule the announcement for those investigations and DoD to miss its deadline for spending the money before running afoul of the law.

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? It all depends on Trump's motivation and Biden's motivation. If each was for personal gain, then it is wrong, correct? Yet even if Bolten shows that Trump did withheld the money to force an investigation, that DOESN'T prove it was for personal gain.

No one can call what Biden did extortion -- getting Shokin fired was consensus policy among Democrats, Republicans, and the international community. It increased the possibility of Burisma and Zolchevsky getting investigated, since Shokin had buried the investigation in an extortion scheme.

Pure BS, Sam. That is after the fact rationalizing. Exactly what dems are claiming the Repubs are doing to excuse Trump.


So, assuming neither Biden nor Trump had personal motives, would the cases be different in any way?

And assuming both Biden and Trump had personal motives, would the cases be different?

[DivineOb]

It sure looks like it since his son was the object of the investigation.

This is false.

[Sparko]

Actually, it is. There is on this opera revolving around Trumps attempt to extort Ukraine a continuously moving target in terms of what the opera is really about, with thos supporting Trump constantly shift what target actually means Trump has earned impeachment. When this started few would claim that IF Trump did try to extort Ukraine it would be a bad thing. But the arguments were all aimed at showing the accused actions never took place. Once it was clear they took place, it shifted to why he did them. Noemw that it's clear he did them for exactly the reason stated, we are at the point the conservative pundits are now pretending maybe it is not so bad after all of a president tries to get a foreign actor to interfere in our election process.

And the answer is - yes, it's a very, very bad thing. It is something the founding fathers were very concerned about and that they devoted a good deal of thought to preventing.

For a president to willingly seek that out is the quintessential impeachable act. It is THE reason impeachment exists. The president is undermining and corrupting one of the most critical elements to the stability of our government - the authenticity of the vote.

Biden extorted Ukraine to fire the prosecutor. Admitted it on video. How is that not the same thing as they are accusing Trump of?

The only difference is that the dems are excusing Biden and claiming it wasn't for personal reasons. So apparently extorting a foreign country is not wrong in and of itself. It only depends on the motive. correct?

[Sparko]

This is false.

No.

[DivineOb]

No.

What charges was Hunter being investigated for?

[Sam]

No, this was an on-the-fly decision by Biden. He just up and extorted the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor or they were not getting money. That he invoked Obama in that decision makes it worse. Either extortion is wrong no matter how many people agree to it, or withholding money til you get a result you want from a foreign country is not extortion.

It is the same thing they are accusing Trump of.

And the question is - did Biden do it for personal gain? It sure looks like it since his son was the object of the investigation.



That's the million dollar question, isn't it? It all depends on Trump's motivation and Biden's motivation. If each was for personal gain, then it is wrong, correct? Yet even if Bolten shows that Trump did withheld the money to force an investigation, that DOESN'T prove it was for personal gain.
Pure BS, Sam. That is after the fact rationalizing. Exactly what dems are claiming the Repubs are doing to excuse Trump.


So, assuming neither Biden nor Trump had personal motives, would the cases be different in any way?

And assuming both Biden and Trump had personal motives, would the cases be different?

21aqbc.jpg

It was not an on-the-fly decision by Biden; he even recounts, in that same interview, that Ukrainian officials could call up the White House and they'd get the same demand! It was the official White House policy, shared by Republicans and Democrats and the international community. The UK had just been forced to drop investigations on Zolchevsky because Shokin wouldn't cooperate with investigations. There are Republican senators on record contemporaneously calling for Shokin's firing. Hunter Biden was never shown to be the target of any investigation, in Ukraine or USA.

At this point, you have to ask yourself: how did I get the facts so wrong and how do I need to change my media diet to fix that?

--Sam

[Sparko]

What charges was Hunter being investigated for?

If the Ukrainian prosecutor had investigate Burisma, he would have uncovered the fact that Joe had used his influence to get Hunter a seat on the board, making millions for doing nothing. Shady all around.

There is no question that Biden used nepotism to get Hunter the job getting paid to do nothing at a company he had no experience in. That alone would have gotten Trump impeached. Then to try to cover it up by firing the prosecutor?

wow.

The fact that you, Sam and the other democrats can totally ignore and excuse that while getting the fire ready to burn Trump says all I need to know.

[DivineOb]

If the Ukrainian prosecutor had investigate Burisma, he would have uncovered the fact that Joe had used his influence to get Hunter a seat on the board, making millions for doing nothing. Shady all around.

You said this

It sure looks like it since his son was the object of the investigation.

Now you are saying something different and proceeding to take your ball and go home like [most] Trumpers do when asked to put up or shut up.

Sad really.

[Sparko]

You said this

It sure looks like it since his son was the object of the investigation.

Now you are saying something different and proceeding to take your ball and go home like [most] Trumpers do when asked to put up or shut up.

Sad really.

OK I wasn't exactly clear. sue me.

Biden got Hunter a job at Burisma by peddling his influence as currency to the Ukraine, while Hunter was getting paid millions for doing nothing.
The prosecutor was investigating Burisma.
Joe didn't want them to find out about his nepotism and the payoffs his son was getting.

[Sam]

If the Ukrainian prosecutor had investigate Burisma, he would have uncovered the fact that Joe had used his influence to get Hunter a seat on the board, making millions for doing nothing. Shady all around.

There is no question that Biden used nepotism to get Hunter the job getting paid to do nothing at a company he had no experience in. That alone would have gotten Trump impeached. Then to try to cover it up by firing the prosecutor?

wow.

The fact that you, Sam and the other democrats can totally ignore and excuse that while getting the fire ready to burn Trump says all I need to know.

There is no evidence that suggests Joe Biden used his influence to secure a position for his son. No evidence whatsoever.

What Hunter Biden did is use his father's name and position to secure a position on the board. Joe Biden's involvement is summed up in his recollection of being told about the job by Hunter: "I hope you know what you're doing".

One can rightly argue that Hunter Biden's trading on his father's name is grossly immoral and corrupt nepotism -- a number of us have been saying that since the beginning and point to how frequent and [i]banal/i] the practice in Washington is. We also point out that it's exactly how the Trump children have operated their entire adult lives.

But that's categorically different from saying that Joe Biden assisted his adult son's nepotism in any way. The most one can say, at this point, is that Joe Biden didn't prevent his son from doing so. And while I'll gladly side with anyone who says that the law should be changed to strictly regulate and eliminate this behavior, none of y'all have been saying that -- you are, right now, merely saying something that is false.

--Sam

[DivineOb]

OK I wasn't exactly clear. sue me.

Biden got Hunter a job at Burisma by peddling his influence as currency to the Ukraine, while Hunter was getting paid millions for doing nothing.
The prosecutor was investigating Burisma.
Joe didn't want them to find out about his nepotism and the payoffs his son was getting.

What payoffs? Payoffs for what? What is your evidence that he was illegally being paid money?

In 2012,

In April 2014 after the Ukrainian revolution, Biden joined the board of Burisma Holdings, one of the largest independent natural gas producers in Ukraine owned by an Ukrainian oligarch and former politician Mykola Zlochevsky who faced a money laundering investigation that time.

[Sparko]

There is no evidence that suggests Joe Biden used his influence to secure a position for his son. No evidence whatsoever.

Ya know, maybe if the prosecutor had gotten to investigate Burisma we would have found out!