[rockdoc123]

so it would be an offense if biden were the nominee, but since he's merely the front runner it's fine?

well I guess it depends on what poll you look at as Warren seems to be ahead, but irrespective there is no one person he is running against at this moment. At this point Biden is nothing more than a Dem candidate, him coming or going doesn't have a lot of pros or cons for Trump at this particular moment.

But again, it probably isn't an offense given he is not looking for "dirt" but wanting potential criminal activity investigated. Do you think it is OK if Biden bribed or used influence with a foreign government to gain advantage for a family member? I have no idea whether he did or did not but seems to me that is something that should be investigated just as it would have to be investigated if it was a former Republican Vice President or member of the inner circle.

[Plantagenet]

Adam Schiff went on TV a week ago and swore that neither he nor anyone on his staff had any contact with the "whistleblower" before the "whistleblower filed his complaint.

But now we know thats a lie.

The NY Times reported yesterday that Schiff met with the whistleblower and may even have read and critiqued his report BEFORE it was submitted through channels.

Schiff has now shifted his story to say that it wasn't him....it was his staff who met the whistleblower and later told Schiff about it. So Schiff himself is now admitting he lied a week ago.

But is he still lying now?

Its seems highly unlikely to me that Schiff's own staff would meet a whistleblower and not tell Schiff immediately. And it seems highly unlikely that Schiff's staff would make decisions on their own about someone as important as a CIA whistleblower without talking about it with their boss, Adam Schiff.

Hopefully we'll get this sorted out. We already know Schiff lied about the whistleblower.......So why did Schiff lie? What really happened? Did Schiff read the report before it was filed? Did Schiff make suggestions or even write sections of the whistleblower report himself as President Trump has suggested?

These question need to be answered in order to assess the credibility and the legitimacy of the so-called whistleblower.

Cheers!

[Pops]

it probably isn't an offense given he is not looking for "dirt" but wanting potential criminal activity investigated.

What makes you think that?
Is that why he asked russia to get hillary's emails? Then promoted every dump of stolen emails they made? It's just his deep abiding reverence for the rule of law?
Is that why he was the birther in chief?
The prosecutor of the central park five?

Do you think it is OK if Biden bribed or used influence with a foreign government to gain advantage for a family member?

Of course not. I have no problem with a criminal investigation by investigators - not politicians.

trump is a con and a crook, it's a known fact. he does not care who broke the law and you know it. He's making the sanctimonious libs hair burn, and you like it.

trump is not emotionally capable of understanding that this is a sovereign state and we don't want outsiders meddling with our election. trumpers know that, and you know it whether you admit it or not.
.

[Pops]

These question need to be answered in order to assess the credibility and the legitimacy of the so-called whistleblower.
Cheers!

The "so-called whistleblower" has been irrelevant for a week
trump admitted to abusing his power with the read-out of the call
then did it on camera again this morning

nixon said "I'm not a crook."
trump is saying "I'm a crook, and no one cares."

[Pops]

So in an effort to give you guys a face-saving out, here is opinion from fox news senior judicial analyst Napolitano

There is no such wiggle room for bribery. The Constitution is quite clear that "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" shall constitute a basis for impeachment.

Was Trump offering to bribe the Ukrainian president? The circumstantial evidence is: Yes. The transcript of Trump's critical conversation with the Ukrainian president shows he asked his counterpart to coordinate with American authorities to prosecute the son of his likely political opponent in 2020. That is the solicitation of something of value from a foreign government -- a felony.

Within a week of that conversation, Trump put his hold on the $390 million in aid. That's when the Ukrainian president got the message.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Where does this leave us? We are at the precipice of a constitutional crisis. We have a president whose apparent corruption is palpable. We have a Constitution that prescribes a remedy. We have an attorney general who acts as if he were the president's personal lawyer. We have Republicans in Congress who see and hear no evil from this president. And we have congressional Democrats hesitant to do their constitutional duty.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/judge-a ... uption.amp

You all can get right with history, tell the folks at the bingo hall you believe fox and they said trump is a crook.

[Ibon]

Oh no. The deep state is in Fox News.. Arm the militia..

[Cog]

Judge Nap is a never trumper. We do have them in the Republican party. He cuts no ice with his Democrat talking points. Maybe he is angling for a job with Cnn like Andy McCabe.

[rockdoc123]

Is that why he asked russia to get hillary's emails? Then promoted every dump of stolen emails they made? It's just his deep abiding reverence for the rule of law?
Is that why he was the birther in chief?
The prosecutor of the central park five?

look, you have made it patently clear you hate the guy. Unfortunately, none of that has anything whatsoever to do with the Biden situation. You have to demonstrate that Trump personally benefits from asking to have Biden investigated. What if the investigation doesn't show anything? What if Biden doesn't end up even being a close third in the Dem race?

I guess you must have missed the fact that a year's worth of full-on investigation by Mueller found zip? Or as someone here would often say "sorry your girl lost".

So in an effort to give you guys a face-saving out, here is opinion from fox news senior judicial analyst Napolitano

That would be the same Judge Napolitano who is a well-known 911 conspiracy theorist and started the idea that Trump was being wire-tapped by British intelligence? The Washington Post calls him the purveyor of conspiracy theories. On the other hand former US District Attorney for D.C. stated that there was no crime committed and also said Napolitano was a fool on, wait for it...Fox News.

as I remember he also claims Trump promised him a spot on the Supreme Court which went to someone else. I suspect he might be a bit pissed off about that.

[Plantagenet]

the solicitation of something of value from a foreign government -- a felony.

No court has ever held that asking a foreign government to investigate corruption is soliciting a "thing of value." The US government has expressed its concern over foreign corruption many times in the past and hopefully will continue to do so in the future.

Within a week of that conversation, Trump put his hold on the $390 million in aid. That's when the Ukrainian president got the message.

That claim doesn't match the facts. Its a total fabrication.

We know now that the Ukrainian president never "got the message" you are fantasizing was in the phone call. You must have missed the news that the Ukrainian president wasn't even aware the money was being temporarily withheld until a month after the phone call.. The claim that Trump was withholding the money to threaten the Ukrainians over the phone is nonsensical since the transcript shows that no threats were made and the Ukrainians weren't even aware it was being temporarily withheld.

ukraine-didnt-realize-u-s-withheld-aid-until-one-month-after-trump-call-

Cheers!

[Pops]

trump knows the jig is up, his latest claim is an absolute right to collude with other countries to smear his rivals.

Claiming his absolute right to do whatever he wants is trumps excuse of last resort.
Previous Absolute Right claims made by the little dictator was the absolute right to tell companies where they can operate, declare emergency in order to subvert congress's constitutional authority, release detained undocumented immigrants into so-called sanctuary cities, release a highly detailed classified photo, overide any security concern in granting clearances, pardon himself.

Once presidents spoke of the peoples absolute rights, no more.

[evilgenius]

It's amazing how much emotion plays a role in things like this. Trump is the standard bearer for those who want the sort of feeling they used to have about their own, and their country's, place in the world. The Democrats have not taken this time in order to address those people's fears. When the major Democratic candidates were confronted over the role of Socialism in their visions of the future by various minor candidates, they were scoffed at rather than attended to in the way that members of the side that actually won the Cold War might naturally expect. There are enough people who worry along those lines that they have an impact upon elections.

This is a hard time for me. The US is becoming increasingly isolationist. It is doing that at the same time as it is pursuing a first among equals attitude toward those with whom it has had to come down from that position with in order for a global economy to develop. As a result, I think it is far more likely that things like the imbalance of control over people's personal information by extremely large social media companies, basically those at the apex of power in the world that technology is creating, will continue well past the point where it shouldn't. We shouldn't allow overarching constructs that dictate the context within which success is determined to develop without legal oversight. People will give up a lot in order to put food in their mouths. Little people actually look to become even smaller. Those people with concerns about their place in the world will ultimately need the power of the law on their side. Looking sideways at Trump's violations in order to satisfy their emotions won't get that for them.

[Plantagenet]

trump knows the jig is up, his latest claim is an absolute right to collude with other countries to smear his rivals.

The US has cooperated with other countries for years on investigations of possible criminal behavior by US citizens in other countries.

Just because someone's name is Biden and they are a "D" doesn't entitle them to not be investigated for possible corruption.

IMHO opinion Biden "shook down" the Ukrainians to enrich his own family.

AND here's how Biden shook down the Ukrainians laid out in four easy steps.....

1. Obama put Biden in charge of US policy towards Ukraine.

2. So Biden gets on a plane and flies to Ukraine to tell them he's in charge of US policy at a time when the Ukrainians desperately need US help.

3. And, oh, by the way, Biden just happened to bring his son along on the government jet and....listen up, Ukrainians. Joe Biden says his son Hunter the drug addict is looking for a job.

4. The Ukrainians know when someone is shaking them down. They arranged for Hunter to get paid millions for doing nothing in order to make Joe happy. They sure didn't hire Hunter for his expertise, because he knew nothing about Ukraine or NG or European markets. Hunter Biden knew nothing at all.

Joe Biden shook them down. The Ukrainians set up a sham job for Hunter to bribe Joe. AND Thats corruption.

To me the scandal isn't that Trump thinks Biden should be investigated for shaking down the Ukrainians. To me the scandal is that the Ds are all OK with Biden using his position in government to shake down the Ukrainians and enrich his own family. Hunter and Joe ripped off 3 million dollars from the Ukrainians. And then when it was time for Joe to leave office the Ukrainians edged Hunter out. NO sense wasting money on bribing Joe anymore when he's out of power.....

Joe is the new Hillary. Ds were outraged that Hillary was being investigated during the 2016 election, and now Ds are outraged that Biden might be investigated during the 2020 election. Its just the same old thing....Ds think they are above the law and think they should never ever ever be investigated.


CHEERS!

[Cog]

When Obama was using foreign intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign, that didn't seem to bother Pops very much. Guess Pops never heard of Five Eyes. Or Steele. Sad he is so uninformed.

[Newfie]

^ point has crossed my mind as well. Also sanctions.

[dissident]

When Obama was using foreign intelligence agencies to spy on the Trump campaign, that didn't seem to bother Pops very much. Guess Pops never heard of Five Eyes. Or Steele. Sad he is so uninformed.

Unfortunately the partisan polarization in the USA is so severe that it literally makes partisans blind to any information that does not maintain their intellectual safe space and their precious narratives. This sort of political extremism is ripe soil for civil war. I hope the USA does not fall into that hole. But with millions of blinkered, self-anointed SJWs suckling at the fake stream media teat and looking for a good lynching, the chance of falling into the hole increases by the day.

[Ibon]

But with millions of blinkered, self-anointed SJWs suckling at the fake stream media teat and looking for a good lynching, the chance of falling into the hole increases by the day.

Especially when you display your partisan extremism by only naming on side of the polarity. It takes two to tango. Without both sides being equally locked in there is no polarity dance, there is no civil war. Your post reveals your own blindness which really does underscore what you are concerned about.

[Plantagenet]

I wonder if Nancy Pelosi will ever hold a vote to start the "impeachment inquiry?"

It seems very strange that something as momentous as starting an impeachment inquiry can be done in the House of Representatives entirely on Nancy's say-so, and without holding a vote of our Representatives.

This kind of thing is why so many people think Nancy Pelosi has damaged the culture of the House. Every impeachment inquiry ever done before was started with a vote of the House. But Nancy has decided to ignore 200 years of precedent because she is afraid to hold a vote. Nancy fears that is a vote then there would have to be a debate on the measure and Nancy doesn't want any kind of normal debate or normal procedure to be followed.

So another 200 year-long precedent precedent has just been discarded by Nancy and her hyper-partisan Ds. Its arrogant and unnecessary....Nancy and the Ds would win the vote if it was held.....But Nancy won't allow no voting around here.

Cheers!

[Plantagenet]

AS I predicted, the so-called whistleblower has now been shown to have lied to the inspector general when he filed his "whistleblower" report. The whistleblower is required, under penalty of perjury, to reveal other actions and contacts he has undertaken with his report prior to filing it. But the whistleblower failed to reveal that he had met with Adam Schiff and his staff and coordinated his actions with them prior to filing the report.

anti-trump-cia-whistleblower-concealed-huddle-schiff-committee-ig

Considering the political nature of this impeachment, the failure to disclose these contacts by the so-called whistleblower casts into doubt the claim that he "did things right" and was "nonpartisan" in making his report. Instead, it appears that he coordinated his report with Adam Schiff, and then lied about doing this when he submitted the report. The whistleblower also lied by claiming a "quid pro quo" was discussed on the phone when clearly it wasn't.

And, in a related matter, Adam Schiff himself was called out as a liar by the Washington Post after Schiff ludicrously claiming that there was no interaction with the whistleblower, and then saying his staff interacted with the whistleblower but never told him about it all.

washington-post-awards-adam-schiff-four-pinocchios-for-false-comments-about-whistleblower

The only thing to do now is to charge the whistleblower with perjury, as required by law, and to censure Adam Schiff for secretly interacting with the whistleblower, for failing to inform the intelligence committee about this report, as required by the law, and for publicly (and ludicrously) lying by falsely claiming he knew nothing about the report or the whistleblower before the report was filed.

Cheers!

[Outcast_Searcher]

AS I predicted, the so-called whistleblower has now been shown to have lied to the inspector general when he filed his "whistleblower" report.

So now should the statement from the whistle blower be thrown out, or is it usable as "evidence" against Trump?

I could be wrong, but, given the way politics works, I'll just bet it depends on which side of the political aisle one sits. Funny how that works.

[Cog]

The statement by the whistleblower is hearsay in any event. He wasn't a witness to the conversation and only heard about it from others. It would be tossed in any court of law as inadmissable. The actual transcript of the conversation is not near as damning, which is why Schiff did a parody of it when he referred to it.

We have spent the last three years listening to charges of Trump corruption and malfeasance with the Russians. Unsupported accusation after accusations. When the Mueller report didn't show that, what were the Dems left with? Another Democrat supporting leaker from the intelligence community who made much of nothing. Funny how Trump is not allowed to mention Democrat corruption, but he was accused of it falsely of it daily for three years with no one on the Democrat side paying any consequence for it.

I guess if you want immunity from any crime just run for president on the Democrat side and you can't be touched. Hell, even better than that, just mention a Democrat might have committed a crime and you will find yourself the one in trouble.

Have the impeachment. The further the Dems go down this road, the more it will hurt them. It will also hurt the country as the partisan divide will become a chasm with a good chance of violence. But the Dems simply don't care about that either. Dems started a war back in 1860 over the election of a Republican president and I guess history will have to repeat itself with them.