[Ibon]

Biden may be a creep, but we're dealing with a much bigger creep. .

It's only a month away from Halloween!

[charmcitysking]

If Trump was being above board about rooting out corruption, then why did he 1. specifically mention Biden? and 2. try to hide these conversations/negotiations from the public?

Biden may be a creep, but we're dealing with a much bigger creep. You can't impeach for being a creep, but you can impeach for using one's office to elicit aid for strictly political gain from a foreign government. Is that a crime? Well, it doesn't appear to ever have been done before. Trump is in a class all by himself. If the Congress saids it's an impeachable offence, then it obviously is, as Congress makes the laws, IMO.

He specifically mentioned Biden because it was specifically Biden who used his office to secure improper benefits for his son. Were any other politicians’ children given lucrative Directorships in the aftermath of the Ukrainian coup?

Trump just released a full, un-redacted transcript of his “negotiations”. Not typical behavior of someone trying to hide something.

Strange take

[Plantagenet]

Elizabeth Warren just gave a speech where she said when she is president she won't allow her vice president to have his children sit on the boards of foreign corporations and be paid huge amounts of money for doing nothing.

And do you know why Elizabeth Warren said that?

Because those payments to Hunter Biden were bribes. A pro-Russian oligarch in Ukraine was giving large amounts of money to the Biden family.

And Ds (other then Elizabeth Warren) apparently think its just fine Biden was being bribed.

Sheeeesh!

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

But meanwhile, as a moderate,

LOL, just for grins I searched your posts and find you've used the word "moderate" 352 times. That's just the one word, not every other possible disclaimer. Seems like if you were actually moderate you wouldn't need to stipulate as much as your opening argument before every statement.

Well, this country is so politically divided (and politically deranged IMO), that there is a reason I frequently remind people I'm a moderate.

As a moderate, I have views on different topics based on what I believe, NOT what party X has on its platform at the moment, or as a general rule.

So if I give a right wing opinion on something, say financial, then I'm often accused of being a GOP thug, etc.

If I give a left wing opinion on something, say people being free to choose for lifestyle, religion, etc, then I'm frequently accused of being a lefty.

And, heaven forbid, I dare make a left wing AND right wing opinion on two different issues in one post! Then I'm accused of being confused, being a liar, being a political hack, being stupid, and on and on.

Because OBVIOUSLY, if someone doesn't hew stictly to the GOP or the Dems as a US citizen, something is very WRONG with them. (Thinking for themselves, issue by issue, and maybe even being wrong from time to time, well, we can't have THAT!!)

And I didn't get the vast majority of such feedback here -- I'm talking after numerous years of posting using Disqus, etc. on lots of discussion areas (like for articles) on a wide range of internet sites. (I don't watch TV. I'm single. I have time to explore things, which was a goal of early retirement. Sue me.)

...

I mostly lean right wing on financial and personal responsibility sorts of issues and left wing on a lot of social issues re leaving people alone, less military adventurism, etc. So if I'm not a legit moderate, what should I call myself?

(Many would quip "insane", I'm sure, but I'd rejoin "assumes facts not in evidence".)

[Outcast_Searcher]

Obviously both sides are going to try to spin this to the max, to get their way. That's absolutely normal politics.

To listen to Fox News vs. CNBC report on the issue, you'd think we were talking about COMPLETELY different people/events. (On such issues, I like to listen a bit to both those sources, to get a sense of each party line).


I think the real question is whether the inquiry opens up a huge can of worms re clear Trump corruption, etc. If so, then perhaps it gets so bad that even his own party wants him out, and he gets impeached. If not, apparently the senate won't vote to impeach.

Meanwhile ,the accusations each side hurls are frequent, emotional, and loud, but given the respective political motivations (and not being a legal expert), I'm not so sure what they amount to but (again), politics as usual.

[Pops]

So would I be considered a Moderate?

That's my kinda moderate!

[Pops]

Seems as clear a smoking gun the Ds are likely to get.
If they fiddle, trump & Rs will gaslight the public just like with russia.

Ukraine: thanks for the guns
trump: I need a favor tho

Doesn't get more cut and dry.

[jedrider]

The Senate won't impeach Trump, but they don't have to. The House of Representatives will let the public 'impeach' the President.

[Newfie]

IMHO it boils down to this; the Senate MAY support impeachment to get Trump out of the way. Remember he losses off a lot of R’s in getting the nomination and now there are R’s who can’t run as long as he is sitting.

So it would not suppose me too much if he was impeached.

As to right/wrong, who knows, the swamp mud is covering every thing and every one.

And the American People are huge losers in this because the government is now essentially non-functional and will remain so as long as the farce continues. The one point where I though Trump was doing pretty good was on negotiating with difficult states. It strikes me that now his negotiation ability will be severely limited.

[jedrider]

I don't think Trump was providing any benefit. The US had been in gridlock anyway for more than ten years now. Before then, it should have been in gridlock.

[Plantagenet]

S trump & Rs will gaslight the public just like with russia....

?????????

Have you ever heard of the Mueller report?

After investigating Trump for over two years, the Mueller report found that there was no collusion between Trump or his campaign and the Russians.

That means Trump isn't a Russian agent. The accusations against Trump came from a Hilalry campaign attack document. It was all a sham and a fraud.

That means the entire Russia investigation turned out to be an attempt by the Ds to "gaslight" the public.

And so far the Ukraine imbroglio seems to be more of the same. Lots of accusations and heavy breathing from the Ds and the MSM, but not much actual substance there.

This hasn't entirely played out yet, but given the history of D lying about Trump its only natural to be skeptical. In fact, Adam Schiff, head of the house intelligence committee, had to apologize yesterday when he was caught out on still more lies about Trump.

Adam Schiff caught lying again, this time fabricating phony quotes about Ukraine

Adam Schift famously lied early in the Russia investigation when he said he'd seen documents that "proved" that Trump was a Russian agent. But of course there were no such documents. Schiff was lying. And here he was, lying again...this time by fabricating phony quotes.

Some people think Schiff should be censored by the house for his repeated lies, but that is unlikely as long as the Ds control the house. Nonetheless, his pattern of lying is troubling, to say the least.

Cheers!

[rockdoc123]

Ukraine: thanks for the guns
trump: I need a favor tho

Doesn't get more cut and dry.

Please show us all where it says that in the phone call notes. I'm afraid the Dems are interpreting well beyond the actual conversation. It didn't happen

what you have right now as far as I can see is:

- notes from the phone call that show no "quid pro quo" and merely demonstrate a President doing his job (seeking out help investigating potential crimes committed by US citizens overseas).
-the President of Ukraine stating that they would be investigating the Biden issues anyway as they were concerned about corruption.
- the President of Ukraine saying to the press that he was not pressured in any way
- a whistleblower who will not reveal himself
- a report by said whistleblower who witnessed nothing but provides second and third hand information from sources he so far has refused to identify. None of those sources have come forward as yet to confirm.
- a view from the Justice Department that the whistleblower had a political viewpoint which would influence his judgment
- clear documented evidence that the former Biden while Vice President representing the US gov't used threats to get a prosecutor removed in Ukraine (essentially the same thing the Dems are accusing Trump of )

I don't have a horse in the race other than it would be good to have someone with some business sense running the US given we currently have a moron running Canada. That being said it would be appalling if the Dems could use this complete lack of evidence and third-hand unsupported acquisations to get an impeachment through.

One question I do have is I was of the understanding that the CIA was not allowed legally to conduct investigations of US citizens in the US (that being the job of the FBI) but the whistleblower is CIA and he was clearly conducting an investigation of the President regarding actions he took while in the US. Seems to me there is a problem there.

[jedrider]

On the last question: I think the CIA monitors communications with foreign governments. Where the initiator of the call is, I don't think that limits them at all. The NSA has it tapped anyway, according to Snowden.

[Ibon]

With the murder of Eppstein still fresh in the minds of many of those in power that whistle blower needs to take special care.

[Pops]

Please show us all where it says that in the phone call notes.
- notes from the phone call that show no "quid pro quo" and merely demonstrate a President doing his job (seeking out help investigating potential crimes committed by US citizens overseas).

Don't be obtuse. Of all the things trump has to worry about, he's concerned about hillary's emails and joe bidens son for the good of the country?

But since you asked:

President Zelenskyy: ...We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
[then immediately]
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

[then a few sentences later]
[trump]Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics ... index.html

Sorry if that was too many words for you to have to read, I gave the cliffnotes earlier
Now I've never spoken with someone about to give me $400m (or whatever it is) but I'm pretty sure a reasonable person would understand the implicit threat by the most powerful man in the world holding up your money and asking a favor. BTW Crowdstrike is a cybersecurity firm that has something to do with hillary's email.

I just now saw this, not sure if it is the prosecutor Biden got fired,

KIEV, Ukraine — A former top Ukrainian prosecutor, whose allegations were at the heart of the dirt-digging effort by Rudolph W. Giuliani, said Thursday he believed that Hunter Biden did not run afoul of any laws in Ukraine.

“From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” former Ukrainian prosecutor general Yuri Lutsenko told The Washington Post in his first interview since the disclosure of a whistleblower complaint alleging pressure by President Trump on Ukraine’s president, Volodymr Zelensky.

Lutsenko’s comments about Hunter Biden — which echo what he told Bloomberg News in May — were significant, because Trump and his personal attorney Giuliani have sought to stir up suspicions about both Hunter and former vice president Joe Biden’s conduct in Ukraine in recent weeks.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/eu ... story.html

[Pops]

trump used his position to extort a foreign government for something of personal value, dirt on his political opponent.
Abuse of power couldn't be more clear.

If 20 R senators don't vote to remove this time I've decided Nancy is right, trump will eventually self impeach because he is incapable of self control or empathy or even hearing his conscience — if there is one. He is mentally and morally incapable of performing the duty. Frankly I believe he is more (less?) than a mere narcissist.

Ah, this seems to fit nicely

Sociopaths may or may not be criminals, but they are often difficult to identify until one is very familiar with their behavior. Sociopaths are often manipulative, lie frequently, lack empathy, and have a weak conscience that allows them to act recklessly or aggressively, even when they know their behavior is wrong.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/sociopathy

What we need is a businessman in the White House!

.

[rockdoc123]

But since you asked:

I’m sorry but your reading skills seem to either be quite poor or purposefully slanted.

Do you actually see someplace where it links buying javelin missiles with looking at the Crowdstrike issue? A favor is something requested without any expectation of a reciprocal benefit. If he wanted something in return for what the US had done he would have said...hey we did this for you and will continue to sell you stuff but only if you do this. I guess your imagination is amazing, maybe thats a trait peculiar to Democrats. But you conveniently didn’t point out what led up to the javelin comment. I think it was Trump saying that they had provided lots to Ukraine and the Ukraine President saying yes you have, thanks for that and by the way we are going to buy some more missiles. Not linked as you suggest at all.

So please out of all that point exactly to what law was broken (high crimes and misdemeanors) and what the exact proof is. Simply quoting from the document which says nothing whatsoever to that end is ridiculous.

Now I've never spoken with someone about to give me $400m (or whatever it is) but I'm pretty sure a reasonable person would understand the implicit threat by the most powerful man in the world holding up your money and asking a favor. 

OH, so now you are going with a view you know what was implied? That’s a bit of a reach and about as far from definitive proof as anything out there. There is nothing here to say that there is a quid pro quo as was originally claimed by the Dems. If you can convict someone in the US based on implication then I think you have some serious problems with your legal system.

As to Hunter Biden the question comes down to selling influence which under FCPA is a criminal offense (i.e. the claim is Hunter Biden had zero qualifications for a Board seat, the salary paid for that position was equivalent to what an experienced Board member would be paid in a corporation 10 times the size in valuation so he was likely given the spot for access to his father who was the Vice President) No direct proof for that which is why Trump was asking to have it investigated (which is his job, a US citizen may have committed a crime under US law). As well Biden Sr offering actual threats (not implied, he actually bragged about it on tape) if the prosecutor was not removed is influence pedaling, again a crime under FCPA.

trump used his position to extort a foreign government for something of personal value, dirt on his political opponent.
Abuse of power couldn't be more clear.

again what is your proof? Do you have some evidence where he offered something in exchange for something else? No you do not. The whistle blower stuff is second and third hand information, hardly credible without actually witnesses.

I know you wish you had proof, you want badly for Trump to be gone, maybe wait for 2020 although I doubt the crew the Dems have lined up have much of a chance. Wall street has pretty much said that if the Dems elect Warren they will support the Republicans.

[Cog]

The only thing the Dems have accomplished is to destroy Joe Biden's shot at the White House and guarantee that Trump will face a hard left Dem like Warren. Trump wins that contest easily.

[Pops]

Oh come now, doc, surely you're not as naive as all that?

First,
Impeachment is not a criminal action, our justice dept says the president can not be charged with a crime. Impeachment is a political action.
Alexander Hamilton, a founding father, wrote about impeachment,

Federalist No. 65 “The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.”

In Nixon's impeachment, Article I was obstruction, Article II was abuse of power:

"repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies"

Article II passed 28-10 in the house (Rs 6Y, 11N)

From Impeachment and Removal
Congressional Research Service, 2015

Impeachable conduct does not appear to be limited to criminal behavior.
Congress has identified three general types of conduct that constitute grounds for
impeachment, although these categories should not be understood as exhaustive:
(1) improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office; (2) behavior
incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and (3) misusing the
office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

So let's just say the Ukrainian is as dense as you pretend to be. trump "asks a favor" while acting in an his official capacity as most powerful man in the world. The favor is to provide something of personal value to trump.
Any reasonable person would agree trump used his office to gain something of personal value and the coercion was simply being the POTUS with half a billion bucks at his disposal.

As for quid pro quo, I'm sure you're a fan of the famous constitutional scholar and senator since jesus Lindsey Graham:

30 years ago, when pressing the case against Clinton, Graham dismissed that little technicality of actually finding that a crime was committed.
“You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role.”

And here’s what Graham said in 1999, explaining the lack of a smoking gun against Clinton.
“He doesn’t have to say ‘go lie for me.’ He doesn’t have to say ‘let’s obstruct justice’ for it to be a crime. You judge people on their conduct, not magic phrases.”

.

[Pops]

If he wanted something in return for what the US had done he would have said...hey we did this for you and will continue to sell you stuff but only if you do this.

Come on, at least familiarize yourself. The Ukrainian was waiting on $400m in aid from the US, not the opportunity to buy stuff. The aid was being held up by trump prior to the call.

But he doesn't have to offer him anything, merely soliciting dirt on his opponent is illegal:

Ellen Weintraub, head of the Federal Election Commission

“Let me make something 100% clear to the American public and anyone running for public office: It is illegal for any person to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election.”

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/fec-chai ... 4a120c90eb

longer

Federal law prohibits a foreign national from directly or indirectly making a “contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” in connection with a U.S. election, and prohibits a person from soliciting, accepting or receiving such a contribution or donation from a foreign national. Federal law defines “contribution” to include “any gift … of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” And the FEC by regulation defines “solicit” to mean “to ask, request, or recommend, explicitly or implicitly, that another person make a contribution, donation, transfer of funds, or otherwise provide anything of value.”

https://www.justsecurity.org/66277/the- ... rainegate/

and shorter

52 U.S. Code § 30121.Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
U.S. Code
(a)Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for—
(1)a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A)a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B)a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C)an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2)a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.
(b)“Foreign national”
defined As used in this section, the term “foreign national” means—
(1)a foreign principal, as such term is defined by section 611(b) of title 22, except that the term “foreign national” shall not include any individual who is a citizen of the United States; or
(2)an individual who is not a citizen of the United States or a national of the United States (as defined in section 1101(a)(22) of title and who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence, as defined by section 1101(a)(20) of title 8.
(Pub. L. 92–225, title III, § 319, formerly § 324, as added Pub. L. 94–283, title I, § 112(2), May 11, 1976, 90 Stat. 493; renumbered § 319, Pub. L. 96–187, title I, § 105(5), Jan. 8, 1980, 93 Stat. 1354; amended Pub. L. 107–155, title III, §§ 303, 317, Mar. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 96, 109.)

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121