Is this the end of Democrat front runner Joe Biden?

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

Why would they?
It's just another distraction technique by the GOP.

I tend to disagree that seeking help in fighting corruption and interference in our elections is just another distraction technique.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

I tend to disagree that seeking help in fighting corruption and interference in our elections is just another distraction technique.

What else has Trump done to give you any inkling he cares about election interference?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/25/politics/republican-senators-block-election-security-legislation/index.html

Do you agree that Russia interfered in the 2016 election?

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

I tend to disagree that seeking help in fighting corruption and interference in our elections is just another distraction technique.

This is an impeachment inquiry about Trump withholding aid to Ukraine for dirt on a political opponent.

WHY would the Biden's be there?

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

This is an impeachment inquiry about Trump withholding aid to Ukraine for dirt on a political opponent.

WHY would the Biden's be there?

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a powerful US elected official (who admitted to a quid pro quo on TV) along with a member of his family who took duplicitous advantage of daddy's name. You can keep trying to spin it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a powerful US elected official (who admitted to a quid pro quo on TV) along with a member of his family who took duplicitous advantage of daddy's name. You can keep trying to spin it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

It's bribery.
You are welcome.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election and to look into possible corruption of a powerful US elected official (who admitted to a quid pro quo on TV) along with a member of his family who took duplicitous advantage of daddy's name. You can keep trying to spin it otherwise but it doesn't make it so.

So you agree that Trump was looking for dirt on Joe Biden. Thank you.

Loafing Oaf

notobtuse wrote: »

Your premise is wrong. Trump asked for help in looking into political interference in our 2016 election

You do know Joe Biden wasn't running in the 2016 presidential election?

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

It's bribery.
You are welcome.

Ah yes 'bribery.' The flavor of the week for impeachment justification since, what... the last 6 or 7 reasons for impeachment amounted to zilch. What do you think the reason for impeachment will be next week? What do you think next weeks reason will be, and the week after that? Treason? Murder? Being an alien?

Put Shiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the faux whistleblower, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Tim Morrison on the stand, and prove it's not just a witch-hunt run in a kangaroo court by the DNC. Yeah, right... good luck with that.

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

notobtuse

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You do know Joe Biden wasn't running in the 2016 presidential election?

EXACTLY! You do know Trump's request to Zelensky was to look into Ukraine's general interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption by one of our officials?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Ah yes 'bribery.' The flavor of the week for impeachment justification since, what... the last 6 or 7 reasons for impeachment amounted to zilch. What do you think the reason for impeachment will be next week? What do you think next weeks reason will be, and the week after that? Treason? Murder? Being an alien?

Put Shiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the faux whistleblower, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Tim Morrison on the stand, and prove it's not just a witch-hunt run in a kangaroo court by the DNC. Yeah, right... good luck with that.

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

You complain about a Kangaroo Court but want to prove one doesn't exist by having the House call a bunch of people who can't offer us any additional clarity about the impeachable acts of Donald Trump?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

EXACTLY! You do know Trump's request to Zelensky was to look into Ukraine's general interference in the 2016 election and possible corruption by one of our officials?

It was to get dirt on Biden. He also asked China to get dirt on Biden from the lawn.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Ah yes 'bribery.' The flavor of the week for impeachment justification since, what... the last 6 or 7 reasons for impeachment amounted to zilch. What do you think the reason for impeachment will be next week? What do you think next weeks reason will be, and the week after that? Treason? Murder? Being an alien?

Put Shiff, Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, the faux whistleblower, Devon Archer, Alexandra Chalupa, Nellie Ohr, and Tim Morrison on the stand, and prove it's not just a witch-hunt run in a kangaroo court by the DNC. Yeah, right... good luck with that.

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

This is the first impeachment inquiry, so I don't really know what you're on about.
Withholding aid in order to gain political dirt is bribery.
And it's very worthy of impeachment.

We know the facts though, 6 people have confirmed it...….so far.
Republicans can't attack the facts, so they'll attack the credibility of the witnesses instead.

Loafing Oaf

notobtuse wrote: »

EXACTLY! You do know Trump's request to Zelensky was to look into Ukraine's general interference in the 2016 election

What form did this alleged interference take if it wasn't improper influence over Biden?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote:

See the latest news? Apparently Marie Yovanovitch lied in her testimony when she said she had no communication with DNC staff about what happened. Luckily she has time to amend her lies testimony and avoid jail time.

No, Fox News — impeachment witness didn't hold secret talks with Dem staffer
Marie Yovanovitch didn’t commit perjury — and she actually followed the rules, too

https://www.mediamatters.org/tucker-carlson/no-fox-news-impeachment-witness-didnt-hold-secret-talks-dem-staffer

WRITTEN BY ERIC KLEEFELD PUBLISHED 11/08/19 3:51 PM EST

Fox News launched a new accusation against one of the key witnesses in the impeachment inquiry, alleging in an online piece that former U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch had “communicated via her personal email account” with a House Democratic staffer on a “quite delicate” issue. And even worse, other right-wing voices are now saying she committed perjury about the matter.

But this story is not what it seems. Instead, it’s yet another right-wing media red herring to distract from the impeachment inquiry, and which also falls apart upon even the closest inspection of its claims.

It starts with a Democratic staffer, whom Fox News identifies as Laura Carey with the House Foreign Affairs Committee, asking Yovanovitch in an email to meet up “to discuss some Ukraine-related oversight questions we are exploring.” The staffer said she would “appreciate the chance to ground-truth a few pieces of information with you, some of which are quite delicate/time-sensitive and, thus, we want to make sure we get them right."

Tucker Carlson ran a report on this story Thursday night, saying Yovanovitch had, in fact, responded to the email, and claiming that she said she hadn’t in her testimony:

Video file
Video Player

TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): Yovanovitch claimed that she never personally responded to it, never responded to the Democratic staffer. In fact, it turns out that she did respond. In fact, she said she, quote, “look forward to chatting with you,” to that staffer, and as Congressman [Lee] Zeldin pointed out, the ambassador's original answer, which was dishonest, was given under oath.

So maybe she’ll get hauled into court like Roger Stone, and threatened with life in prison. Ha! Just kidding.

Zeldin himself has even shared a video of this report, retweeting a link from The Daily Wire’s Ryan Saavedra, who repeated Carlson’s suggestion that Yovanovitch had committed perjury.

https://twitter.com/RepLeeZeldin/status/1192635800300740609?s=20

Zeldin also told Fox News, per the network’s report: “I specifically asked her whether the Democratic staffer was responded to by Yovanovitch or the State Department. It is greatly concerning that Ambassador Yovanovitch didn't answer my question as honestly as she should have, especially while under oath.”

But the story quickly crumbles. Even Fox’s own report included part of the testimony explaining that the Democratic staffer was the one who started the communication by sending a message to Yovanovitch’s personal email. Furthermore, Yovanovitch never told the committee that she hadn’t responded at all to the staffer, but instead said she had pursued official channels.

As Yovanovitch told the committee, and which was also reproduced in the Fox online piece: “So, she emailed me. I alerted the State Department and, you know, asked them to handle the correspondence. And, she emailed me again and said, you know, 'Who should I be in touch with?'”

Fox’s report even reprinted Yovanovitch’s full email in response to the staffer — part of which Carlson excluded — containing what else she said after the initial pleasantries above: “Thanks for reaching out -- and congratulations on your new job. I would love to reconnect and look forward to chatting with you. I have let EUR [Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs] know that you are interested in talking and they will be in touch with you shortly.” (Emphasis added.)

The relevant exchange is found in pages 213 to 216 of Yovanovitch’s deposition, when Zeldin asked: “And what did you do after you received the email?”

“I alerted the State Department,” Yovanovitch responded, “because I'm still an employee and so matters are generally handled through the State Department.”

“Was that person responded to by you or someone else?”

“I believe, yes, by [redacted] in the Legislative Affairs office,” Yovanovitch answered.

Zeldin then asked if she had received any subsequent request, to which Yovanovitch said there had been a second email from this staffer. “I didn't respond to that email, because I had already transferred everything to the State Department and I figured they would be in touch, and they were.”

At worst, Yovanovitch clumsily neglected to mention in laying out the events that when she referred the matter to the official channels, she had also sent this person a brief email telling them that the request had been so referred. But even then, she specifically said that she did not respond to the staffer’s second email, showing just how thoroughly she was following proper procedures.

Nevertheless, Carlson’s accusation has been dutifully picked up by outlets and right-wing figures including RedState, The Daily Wire, Townhall, The Daily Caller, Fox Business host Lou Dobbs, and talk radio host and NBC News contributor Hugh Hewitt."

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

This is the first impeachment inquiry, so I don't really know what you're on about.
Withholding aid in order to gain political dirt is bribery.
And it's very worthy of impeachment.

We know the facts though, 6 people have confirmed it...….so far.
Republicans can't attack the facts, so they'll attack the credibility of the witnesses instead.

What is this 'gain political dirt' nonsense? Joe Biden admitted to a quid pro quo about giving Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of or Biden would not give them the millions in aid. Trump asked them to look into it... that is all. If there is nothing then what does Biden or the DNC have to worry about?

And how many of those 6 people had direct knowledge of what Trump wanted? NONE! They all merely 'thought' that is what Trump wanted. Mere opinions of some without direct knowledge is not impeachable. Of course the party that controls the House can impeach a president because they don't like the color of his tie... or hat.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

What is this 'gain political dirt' nonsense? Joe Biden admitted to a quid pro quo about giving Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of or Biden would not give them the millions in aid. Trump asked them to look into it... that is all. If there is nothing then what does Biden or the DNC have to worry about?

Why would Trump need Ukraine to investigate something that Biden so clearly admitted to a year before, actions which took place years before, as it was the policy of the United States the EU and the IMF to replace Shokin with a prosecutor that would not protect his mob buddies.

Trump wanted dirt. He wanted something that once found would be weaponized against Biden's presidential campaign. There's not a way to polish that.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

What is this 'gain political dirt' nonsense? Joe Biden admitted to a quid pro quo about giving Ukraine six hours to fire the prosecutor investigating the company his son sat on the board of or Biden would not give them the millions in aid. Trump asked them to look into it... that is all. If there is nothing then what does Biden or the DNC have to worry about?

And how many of those 6 people had direct knowledge of what Trump wanted? NONE! They all merely 'thought' that is what Trump wanted. Mere opinions of some without direct knowledge is not impeachable. Of course the party that controls the House can impeach a president because they don't like the color of his tie... or hat.

I'm not sure is you are aware, but there is kind of a big election next year.

The corrupt prosecutor was fired with the help of other world leaders, the EU, the IMF.

One of those who testified was actually listening in on the call.

AGAIN, bribery is a crime.

Other than that, well done.

Cody montana

Overheal wrote: »

Why would Trump need Ukraine to investigate something that Biden so clearly admitted to a year before, actions which took place years before, as it was the policy of the United States the EU and the IMF to replace Shokin with a prosecutor that would not protect his mob buddies.

Trump wanted dirt. He wanted something that once found would be weaponized against Biden's presidential campaign. There's not a way to polish that.

Don't be silly, NOT firing the corrupt prosecutor was the right way to handle the situation.

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

I'm not sure is you are aware, but there is kind of a big election next year.

The corrupt prosecutor was fired with the help of other world leaders, the EU, the IMF.

One of those who testified was actually listening in on the call.

AGAIN, bribery is a crime.

Other than that, well done.

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

So should the CORRUPT prosecutor not have been fired then?

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

So should the CORRUPT prosecutor not have been fired then?

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you think it was CORRUPT to give Ukraine ONLY SIX HOURS to fire him or they don't get the money?

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

BTW, when was Hunter Biden under investigation?

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Oh, bother. They say a picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps this will help you to understand..

Hunter Biden wasn't the target of the probe and the probe was started before he joined the board. But, you know this.

Cody montana

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you think it was CORRUPT to give Ukraine ONLY SIX HOURS to fire him or they don't get the money?

What do you mean maybe no?
If he was corrupt, he should have been fired.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Maybe yes, maybe no. Do you think it was CORRUPT to give Ukraine ONLY SIX HOURS to fire him or they don't get the money?

Nope. But again, you know this.

Removing Shokin was the policy of the State Department, the White House, the GOP-controlled Congress, the International Monetary Fund, and the EU.

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

BTW, when was Hunter Biden under investigation?

Don’t know offhand when it started but as Viktor Shokin was continuing that investigations into corruption surrounding Burisma Holdings who Hunter had a lucrative deal with despite having no expertise in the industry (Shokin claimed it was an appointment made by Zlochevsky "in order to protect himself"), and around June or July of 2015, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves. And Shokin was told Biden had held up US aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

notobtuse

Cody montana wrote: »

What do you mean maybe no?
If he was corrupt, he should have been fired.

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Don’t know offhand when it started but as Viktor Shokin was continuing that investigations into corruption surrounding Burisma Holdings who Hunter had a lucrative deal with despite having no expertise in the industry (Shokin claimed it was an appointment made by Zlochevsky "in order to protect himself"), and around June or July of 2015, US Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves. And Shokin was told Biden had held up US aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html

The allegation at the heart of the controversy is that while Mr. Biden was vice president, he pushed to have Ukraine’s top prosecutor removed for investigating a company connected to Mr. Biden’s son Hunter, the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma. Videos pushing this theory began appearing on Twitter in late September and early October and have been viewed tens of millions of times. Mr. Trump’s campaign has also asserted the claim in ads on Facebook.

Vice President Biden was overseeing American policy toward Ukraine at the time, and he did push for the removal of the country’s top prosecutor, who was seen as corrupt or ineffectual by the United States and Western European governments. But there is no evidence he did so to benefit Hunter Biden or the oligarch who owns Burisma, Mykola Zlochevsky.

In 2014, Hunter joined the board of Burisma, which was then mired in a corruption scandal. Authorities in Ukraine, Britain and the United States had opened investigations into the company’s operations. Mr. Zlochevsky had also been accused of marshaling government contracts to companies he owned and embezzling public money.

At the time of his board appointment, the younger Mr. Biden had just been discharged from the Navy Reserve for drug use. He had no apparent experience in Ukraine or natural gas. And while accepting the board position was legal, it reportedly raised some eyebrows in the Obama administration. The Burisma board position was lucrative: Mr. Biden received payments that reached up to $50,000 per month.

A year later, Viktor Shokin became Ukraine’s prosecutor general, a job similar to the attorney general in the United States. He vowed to keep investigating Burisma amid an international push to root out corruption in Ukraine.

But the investigation went dormant under Mr. Shokin. In the fall of 2015, Joe Biden joined the chorus of Western officials calling for Mr. Shokin’s ouster. The next March, Mr. Shokin was fired. A subsequent prosecutor cleared Mr. Zlochevsky.

Mr. Biden took credit for the firing of Mr. Shokin as a foreign policy win during a talk at the Council on Foreign Relations in January 2018, when he boasted about holding up a loan guarantee to Ukraine until Mr. Shokin was removed.

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

BTW, you didn't answer my question.

Because you're a paragon of answering questions in this thread.

Overheal

Here's a primary document for you, from 2016



US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation
Hearing on Ukrainian Reforms Two Years After the Maidan Revolution and the Russian Invasion
March 15, 2016
“The Double Challenge to Ukraine: Kremlin Aggression and Reform”
Testimony
by
Ambassador (Ret.) John E. Herbst
Director of the Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center
Atlantic Council
@JohnEdHerbst
www.AtlanticCouncil.org

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/031516_Herbst_Testimony.pdf

(I highlight Naftogaz because of the Trump Admin's efforts to interfere on its board: https://time.com/5694469/ukraine-gas-trump-impeachment-naftogaz/

But the Oct. 7 report from the AP suggests that a group of American businessmen wanted to interfere in the market and took the Ukraine LNG lobbying push further. The businessmen — Lev Parnas, Igor Fruman and Harry Sargeant III — allegedly tried to replace Kobolyev as the CEO of Naftogaz and planned to broker a deal to sell their own natural gas to the company.

The AP reports that Perry advocated to fire and replace the entire membership of Naftogaz’s advisory board. Perry said Monday that the suggestion that he demanded particular people join the board was a “dreamed up story” and said that he “gave recommendations at the request of the Ukrainian government.”

Trump, for his part, has furthered questions about the role natural gas and its chief promoter in the administration has played in the Ukraine saga. Over the weekend, Trump tried to pass the blame for the now infamous phone call in which he asked the president of Ukraine to “do us a favor” of investigating Biden: he suggested that it was Perry who’d told him to make the call.

According to an Axios report, Trump explained Perry’s demand on a phone call for GOP House members. It was, he added, “something about an LNG plant.”)