nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

President Donald Trump - Formal Impeachment Inquiry Announced

Veritas Libertas

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announces a formal impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump over the whistleblower complaint on Trump's communication with Ukraine about Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden. /CNN

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Water John

Big problem for the WH is that they haven't organised a War Room, to deal with the issue. So there fighting this, on the hoof. Lots of errors, the two biggest ones being, Trump and Guliani shouting off in public.

Overheal

They don't see it as an error, their war tactic is heavy gaslighting

Overheal

Latest Reuters/Ipsos poll:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/01/poll-trump-impeachment-support-grows/3827863002/

https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/mkt/12/6762/6693/Topline%20Reuters%20Trump%20Biden%20Ukraine%20Poll%20W2%2009302019.pdf

A previous Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Sept. 24 found that 37% of all Americans thought Trump should be impeached and that 45% said he should not. A week later, the number saying he should be impeached rose to 45%, while the number saying he should not be removed from office dropped to 41%.

Support for impeachment was clearly divided between registered Republicans and Democrats, with 13% of GOP voters saying the president should be impeached and 81% saying he should not. Among Democrats, 75% favored impeachment and 14% said they were opposed. And 38% of registered independent voters said Trump should be impeached while 39% said he should not.

Sixty-four percent of Americans said they had heard "a great deal" or "some" about the Ukraine story while another 21% said they had heard about it but knew little of the details. Another 10% said they hadn't heard anything and 6% said they didn't know about the controversy.

The poll found Trump's job approval rating at 39%, down from 43% the previous week, and his disapproval rating at 56%, up from 54%. It also found him losing to the three leading contenders in the Democratic primary if the general election were held today. Biden bested Trump 39-34% in such a hypothetical matchup, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont won 40-34% and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts topped him 38-34%.

The poll was conducted Sept. 26-30 and included 2,234 adults with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.4%.

Trump and his supporters have said the president was motivated by a concern about corruption in Ukraine and have alleged that Biden improperly used his influence as vice president to secure a job for his son Hunter Biden with a Ukrainian energy company.

When asked their take on the story, 43% of Americans told the Reuters/Ipsos pollsters that Trump is trying to smear Biden ahead of the election. Twenty-six percent said Biden is trying to cover up a scandal that could hurt him in 2020, and 31% said they weren't sure which version of events was true. Notably, 42% of independents thought Trump was trying to smear Biden while only 17% thought it was Biden trying to bury a scandal. Forty-one percent of independents said they weren't sure.

Americans did not seem to think it was unusual for an elected official to use the power of their office to smear a rival – with 74% saying they thought many officials already did so. But that did not mean they are OK with it: A majority (65%) agreed that officials who use their office to smear their rivals should be removed. And 66% of the respondents said officials who work with a foreign government to attack their rivals should be removed from office.

Registered Republicans were less certain, with 44% agreeing that a politician who uses their office to go after their opponents should be removed from office, while 41% disagreed. Similarly, 46% of Republicans agreed that an official who works with a foreign government to go after a rival should be removed, while 33% did not.

University of Michigan political scientist Nicholas Valentino told Reuters that he did not expect to see much more fluctuation in the numbers unless Republican leaders begin to break ranks and support Trump's impeachment.

"People aren’t constitutional scholars," Valentino told Reuters. "They trust their elected officials from their party to know the rules of politics. And when members of their own party say that someone has broken the rules, that’s when public opinion will really begin to change."

A poll released Monday by Quinnipiac University found that voters were split 47-47% on whether Trump should be impeached and removed from office. That represented a major swing from the week before when 37% said Trump should impeached and 57% said he should not. And 52% said they approved of the House of Representatives opening a formal impeachment inquiry, while 45% disapproved.

Overheal

CNBC poll out puts Trump's approval rating down to 37% - the lowest point of his Presidency

There's no magic number on it but I feel like he's going to bail if it drops below 30. Nixon's last year in office cruised at low 20's.

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/new-cnbc-poll-trump-approval-rating-drops-to-37-percent-lowest-of-his-presidency/

A new poll suggests that impeachment calls are growing as President Donald Trump’s favorability rating continues to plummet.

CNBC’s new data shows that 44% percent of voters say they’re in favor of holding impeachment hearings, while 47% remain opposed. Correspondent Steve Liesman, while delivering the polling report on air, noted that this is a “much closer margin” that the data CNBC received 2 years ago, which showed 54% of voters opposed impeachment while 41% supported hearings.

The poll also shows that Trump’s economic performance ratings clock in at 42% approval and 50% disapproval. On top of that, the president’s approval rating overall currently stands at 37-53, the lowest rating Trump has ever had in CNBC’s polling.

It isn’t clear how much of the data was affected by the renewed calls for impeachment in light of Trump’s Ukraine scandal, but while an average 42.5% of responders believe impeachment will have negative effects on the stock market and the economy, only 23% think their personal finances will be impacted.

Watch above, via CNBC.

notobtuse

Quid Pro Joe’s campaign is asking TV networks to not book Rudy Giuliani. I guess they’re afraid the networks won’t ‘ask the right questions.’

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Quid Pro Joe’s campaign is asking TV networks to not book Rudy Giuliani. I guess they’re afraid the networks won’t ‘ask the right questions.’

That was Sunday. Old news. Didn’t seem to take with the networks. Don’t see how it’s quid pro quo what did he barter?

Boggles

Overheal wrote: »

There's no magic number on it but I feel like he's going to bail if it drops below 30.

He wants to bail IMO.

He just needs the right excuse, this whole thing could well have been orchestrated at some level, maybe by at accident at first.

Overheal

Sen. Grassley (R-IA) splits from Trump tact of attacking whistleblower, says plainly that the whistleblower followed the applicable laws and should be protected.

https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/sen-grassley-distances-himself-from-trump-says-whistleblower-ought-to-be-heard-out-and-protected/

notobtuse

Chuck Schumer on Trump in 2017: “Let me tell you: You take on the intelligence community — they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.”

Schumer was right... the deep state strikes!

1800_Ladladlad

mickdw wrote: »

Whats the real story here. I cannot get a feel for what is actually going on as news channels are very much on one side or the other.
Has biden really questions to answer?

If you are truly interested, I would recommend for you to read through this thread discussions & arguments and look through the many factual documents made available direct from reputable sources. I would recommend for you to not use the "mainstream media" + twitter as a source of info, as that simply one-sided.

You have already gotten a response from a poster pushing their views on you and what they think has happened. To me, that looked like a desperate attempt to get you to agree with them. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to be able to make up your own mind without your political opinion being interverred with by people who are only involved emotionally and deny opposing arguments presented to them.

Overheal

Latest talking points from the GOP. Pretty weak stuff; cries of “no evidence!” :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/campaigns/no-evidence-or-facts-house-gop-gets-recess-talking-points-on-impeachment

El_Bee

Drumpf is finished, this time.

notobtuse

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

If you are truly interested, I would recommend for you to read through this thread discussions & arguments and look through the many factual documents made available direct from reputable sources. I would recommend for you to not use the "mainstream media" + twitter as a source of info, as that simply one-sided.

You have already gotten a response from a poster pushing their views on you and what they think has happened. To me, that looked like a desperate attempt to get you to agree with them. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to be able to make up your own mind without your political opinion being interverred with by people who are only involved emotionally and deny opposing arguments presented to them.

If, as they claim, the Bidens are innocent of any wrongdoing or impropriety, the Ukrainians will say so and the Bidens should thank President Trump for eliciting that answer and putting an end to the question.

If the Bidens, or at least Hunter Biden, were involved in some level of corruption or quid pro quo, the United States and the Democratic Party should wish to know that also, right?.

Shouldn’t it be investigated to see if corruption is involved since Biden himself bragged that he held up big amounts of US money from Ukraine unless the prosecutor (who was investigating Hunter Biden’s company for wrongdoing) was fired?

notobtuse

El_Bee wrote: »

Drumpf is finished, this time.

I've heard that, like, three dozen times already.

Overheal

GOP House Rep. Mark Amodei the other day told reporters, “Let’s put it through the [inquiry/impeachment] process and see what happens.”

The fallout was swift as it was apoplectic, with party elders (and the White House!) within an hour from airing, blowing up his phone and demanding he explain his actions. His social media has been set ablaze by the troll farms dissembling him as a RINO, and worse, for speaking his mind in such an innocuous way.

https://www.snopes.com/ap/2019/10/01/off-message-a-republican-takes-heat-for-impeachment-remarks/

They’re eating their own.

The Phantom Jipper

1800_Ladladlad wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

Whats the real story here. I cannot get a feel for what is actually going on as news channels are very much on one side or the other.
Has biden really questions to answer?

If you are truly interested, I would recommend for you to read through this thread discussions & arguments and look through the many factual documents made available direct from reputable sources. I would recommend for you to not use the "mainstream media" + twitter as a source of info, as that simply one-sided.

You have already gotten a response from a poster pushing their views on you and what they think has happened. To me, that looked like a desperate attempt to get you to agree with them. I don't want you to agree with me. I want you to be able to make up your own mind without your political opinion being interverred with by people who are only involved emotionally and deny opposing arguments presented to them.

Paranoid warnings against the mainstream media...seems trustworthy.

Anyone who wants to find out what's going on only needs to read the transcript of the call, which Trump's own team has kindly released. It takes maybe 5 minutes to read and is worth the time.

Or alternatively people can avoid the reporting from the media and journalists on Twitter and instead pay attention to the "reputable sources" here and read about how the real scandal has something to do with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, and Adam Schiff and Hillary Clinton and this dastardly whistleblower etc etc.

Veritas Libertas

Is there yet a 'smoking gun tape' in this story? The released transcript doesn't seem to contain anything; is this still all hinging on the word of the whistle-blower that we haven't heard yet?

I find it a bit of a stretch to impeach Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, especially if Biden was involved in nefarious activities in Ukraine. Doesn't it hinge on what evidence Trump had about Biden prior to asking Ukraine to investigate?(If he had no reason to suspect Biden- asking for an investigation is a pretty clear case of interfering in an election)

Remember Obama had the FBI investigating Trump prior to his incumbency

El_Bee

notobtuse wrote: »

I've heard that, like, three dozen times already.

This time will be different, Drumpf is finished it's over for him.

notobtuse

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Is there yet a 'smoking gun tape' in this story? The released transcript doesn't seem to contain anything; is this still all hinging on the word of the whistle-blower that we haven't heard yet?

I find it a bit of a stretch to impeach Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, especially if Biden was involved in nefarious activities in Ukraine. Doesn't it hinge on what evidence Trump had about Biden prior to asking Ukraine to investigate?(If he had no reason to suspect Biden- asking for an investigation is a pretty clear case of interfering in an election)

Remember Obama had the FBI investigating Trump prior to his incumbency

Trump, and everyone else, has reason to suspect Biden for some form of quid pro quo... and that reason is Joe Biden himself for bragging in an interview which is on tape, that he was holding up big amounts of US money from Ukraine unless the prosecutor (who was investigating Hunter Biden’s company for wrongdoing) was fired? I think he gave them all of six hours to fire the prosecutor or he was flying back to Washington and Ukraine wouldn't get the billions.

1800_Ladladlad

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

Paranoid warnings against the mainstream media...seems trustworthy.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQkXsgc9rpHh9MgswVcIzxntVzfh0RvSifMepvLlfvIs2u5te0f

Overheal

notobtuse wrote: »

Trump, and everyone else, has reason to suspect Biden for some form of quid pro quo... and that reason is Joe Biden himself for bragging in an interview which is on tape, that he was holding up big amounts of US money from Ukraine unless the prosecutor (who was investigating Hunter Biden’s company for wrongdoing) was fired? I think he gave them all of six hours to fire the prosecutor or he was flying back to Washington and Ukraine wouldn't get the billions.

False: Biden pushed out a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son
Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.

There are two big problems with this claim: One, Shokin was not investigating Burisma or Hunter Biden, and two, Shokin’s ouster was considered a diplomatic victory.

Biden was among the many Western officials who pressed for the removal of Shokin because he actually was not investigating the corruption endemic to the country. Indeed, he was not investigating Burisma at the time. In September 2015, then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt publicly criticized Shokin’s office for thwarting a British money-laundering probe into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky.

“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk, of the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Action Center, told The Washington Post in July. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”

In a 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden bragged about his role in Shokin’s removal, saying he had withheld $1 billion in loan guarantees as leverage to force action. But Biden was carrying out a policy developed at the State Department and coordinated with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund.

The Ukrainian prosecutor was regarded as a failure, and “Joe Biden’s efforts to oust Shokin were universally praised,” said Anders Aslund, a Swedish economist heavily involved in Eastern European market reforms. Getting rid of Shokin was considered the linchpin of reform efforts, but U.S. officials had a list of changes the government needed to make before it could obtain another loan guarantee.

In December 2015, Biden traveled to Kiev and decried the “cancer of corruption” in the country in a speech to the parliament. “The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform,” he noted. Shokin was removed from office three months later, and Biden announced April 15 that the loan guarantee would go forward; the agreement between the United States and Ukraine was signed June 3.

One can certainly raise questions about Hunter Biden’s judgment in joining Burisma’s board at a time his father had a high-profile role in working with Ukraine’s government. But by continuing to claim that Biden “did” something for his son, Trump persists in spreading a false narrative about a diplomatic maneuver hailed at the time as a step toward reducing corruption in Ukraine.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/09/27/quick-guide-trumps-false-claims-about-ukraine-bidens/

Overheal

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Is there yet a 'smoking gun tape' in this story? The released transcript doesn't seem to contain anything; is this still all hinging on the word of the whistle-blower that we haven't heard yet?

President Trump’s supporters have repeatedly attacked the whistleblower complaint and resulting impeachment proceedings concerning Trump’s conversation with the president of Ukraine by claiming they are based on hearsay. On Saturday, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) tweeted, “In America you can’t even get a parking ticket based on hearsay testimony. But you can impeach a president? I certainly hope not.” As a legal matter, this hearsay claim is wrong on so many levels that it smacks of desperation. As a tactical matter, it plays right into the Democrats’ hands.

Hearsay is evidence of a statement made by someone not in court that is offered to establish the truth of what was said. The whistleblower complaint does contain information that other people relayed to the whistleblower and notes that the whistleblower did not directly witness the underlying events. If a party sought to have the whistleblower testify about those conversations in court, it is true there would be a hearsay objection.

It is also irrelevant, primarily because the whistleblower complaint has already been confirmed by the White House’s own memorandum of the conversation. Acting director of national intelligence Joseph Maguire, testifying before the House Intelligence Committee last week, agreed that the whistleblower’s information has been largely corroborated by the White House memo. The White House has also confirmed using a classified server to hide the record of the conversation, another whistleblower allegation. To a large extent, this investigation has already moved beyond the whistleblower report and is based primarily on the White House’s own admissions and record of the phone call.

The White House memo of the conversation would not be considered hearsay in a court proceeding. The Federal Rules of Evidence provide a statement is not hearsay if it is a party’s own statement offered against that party — a confession by a criminal defendant, for example. The memo contains president Trump’s own statements and is not hearsay if offered against him. The rule against hearsay also has a number of exceptions, including one for official records maintained in the ordinary course of business. The White House memo likely would fall within this “business records” exception, as well.

Equally misguided are claims that the initial investigation into the whistleblower’s complaint is suspect because of the hearsay contained in that complaint. Investigations routinely are begun based on hearsay evidence, tips from confidential informants, newspaper reports, or other information that may not necessarily be admissible in court. There has never been any rule against relying on hearsay to initiate an investigation. The investigation is done to see whether the hearsay can be corroborated — which is exactly what happened here.

In fact, in the federal court system, hearsay not only may be used to begin an investigation; it may be used to indict. It is common for defendants to be charged as a result of grand jury proceedings that rely on hearsay evidence. Because the grand jury is only making an accusation and not deciding guilt or innocence, the Supreme Court has held that rules against hearsay and other evidentiary rules generally do not apply in grand jury proceedings. In an impeachment proceeding, the House of Representatives is most directly analogous to the grand jury. The House investigates and makes the charging decision, and the Senate holds a trial to decide whether the charges merit conviction and removal from office. So, even if some of the evidence against the president was hearsay, the House would be on solid ground relying upon that evidence when deciding whether to impeach.

Of course, Graham, a lawyer and former prosecutor, knows all of this. When he and other supporters of the president cry “hearsay," they are not concerned about accuracy or legal niceties. To the general public, “hearsay” is shorthand for “unreliable.” The hearsay claim is simply an attempt to raise doubts about the overall credibility of the evidence against the president.

But the hearsay claim is not only legally unsound, it’s tactically absurd. The logical Democratic response is, “Absolutely, we don’t want to rely on hearsay when deciding on impeachment. So let’s interview the whistleblower, identify all the witnesses that he or she talked to, and get sworn testimony from all of them. Let’s have all the other relevant witnesses with direct knowledge, such as Trump lawyer Rudolph W. Giuliani, testify under oath as well. Before making a decision on impeachment, let’s get as much firsthand, eyewitness testimony as possible.” This will only serve to strengthen any evidence of misconduct.

The initial whistleblower complaint may have relied, in part, on hearsay, but any articles of impeachment Democrats put forward will not. Impeachment, if it happens, will be based on evidence from those with direct knowledge and the White House’s own records of what happened. The current cries of “hearsay” are simply an attempt to deflect attention from the already confirmed facts about the president’s misconduct.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/09/30/president-trumps-hearsay-defense-is-absurd/

I find it a bit of a stretch to impeach Trump for asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, especially if Biden was involved in nefarious activities in Ukraine. Doesn't it hinge on what evidence Trump had about Biden prior to asking Ukraine to investigate?(If he had no reason to suspect Biden- asking for an investigation is a pretty clear case of interfering in an election)

Remember Obama had the FBI investigating Trump prior to his incumbency

Biden was not engaged in nefarious activities in Ukraine, though. Trump used his personal attorney, not a federal employee at all, to arrange this. Then he involved Barr, and Barr went on a tour to ask foreign intelligence agencies to spy on the american intelligence community. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/attorney-general-barr-personally-asked-foreign-officials-to-aid-inquiry-into-cia-fbi-activities-in-2016/2019/09/30/d50cd5c4-e3a5-11e9-b403-f738899982d2_story.html

Trump actively seeks to discredit the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and seeks to criminally implicate Joe Biden directly in all of this - who has been the frontrunner for almost this entire Primary race. But Joe Biden wasn't in the race in 2016 - in fact he lost his son in 2015.

At the time of the call Zelensky's people had already been speaking to Guliani - who no doubt told them about $400 M in withheld aid - or he at least had the opportunity to do this. Some of this is linked to the call by what Trump says about how much he does for Ukraine and Zelensky's desire to buy Javelins - "I'd like you to do a favor though..."

Certainly merits an inquiry.

The Trump conspiracy theory however is that, seemingly, Biden masterminded the whole election of 2016 in the Ukraine... by hacking the DNC... and making it look like Russia did it.... to leak DNC files that damaged the DNC, and vaulted Trump up in the polls... so that they could play a long con to impeach Trump (rather than just beat him in an election) by claiming he was helped by Russia... - it's a mess. It makes little sense.

Veritas Libertas

Overheal wrote: »

False: Biden pushed out a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son
Trump has falsely claimed that Biden in 2015 pressured the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the top Ukrainian prosecutor, because he was investigating Ukraine’s largest private gas company, Burisma, which had added Biden’s son, Hunter, to its board in 2014.

Politifact concluded:

“Vice President Joe Biden did urge Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor, with the threat of withholding U.S. aid. But that was the position of the wider U.S. government, as well as other international institutions. We found no evidence to support the idea that Joe Biden advocated with his son’s interests in mind, as the message suggests. It’s not even clear that the company was actively under investigation or that a change in prosecutors benefited it.”

So I guess now they only need to prove that Trump advocated for the investigation for his own interests, rather than for the good of the country.

Tough thing to prove.

Overheal

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Politifact concluded:

So I guess now they only need to prove that Trump advocated for the investigation for his own interests, rather than for the good of the country.

Tough thing to prove.

It will boil down to that, for that charge, yes. It doesn't look good for him how cloak and dagger this all is - nor does it look good that Ukraine thus far has only spoken to Biden's exculpatories.

Interestingly the President keeps making his problems bigger: his attempts to investigate and unmask the whistleblower, for instance, screams federal crime: violating the Whistleblower Protection Act and committing acts of witness tampering. He has also called for the arrest of a US Senator for 'treason' for paraphrasing his phonecall in a biased manner; and he has made overtures about Civil War and arguing that he is unimpeachable because of how many counties he won in 2016. It's a mess; it demonstrates a dangerous pattern of behavior that will likely continue if he remains in office, which is a primary factor to consider in the impeachment of a US President.

In articles of impeachment expect Volume II of the Mueller Report to come back up: these are things that, frankly, should have been impeachable, however its too hard to explain to a tuned-out populace, and wasn't a strong enough reason to try and impeach the president in a sympathetic Senate. Doesn't mean the charges wont be included now though.

Veritas Libertas

Overheal wrote: »

[..]

Biden was not engaged in nefarious activities in Ukraine, though.

If there's one outlet I hate more than anyone else, its the Washington Post. They are worse than any media source on the right.

He did the exact same thing Trump did. The point of dispute seems to be why they did it, was it for personal interest or for the interest of the country.

Trump used his personal attorney, not a federal employee at all, to arrange this.

Was this him abandoning tradition? I don't see the relevance, maybe you can explain further.

Trump actively seeks to discredit the intelligence community's conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and seeks to criminally implicate Joe Biden directly in all of this - who has been the frontrunner for almost this entire Primary race. But Joe Biden wasn't in the race in 2016 - in fact he lost his son in 2015.

That's another story .. What does the Russia interference have to do with Ukraine(apologies if I missed this somewhere)

At the time of the call Zelensky's people had already been speaking to Guliani - who no doubt told them about $400 M in withheld aid - or he at least had the opportunity to do this. Some of this is linked to the call by what Trump says about how much he does for Ukraine and Zelensky's desire to buy Javelins - "I'd like you to do a favor though..."

I don't trust Giuliani as far as I could throw him. Is it expected that his testimony will shed more light on this issue/reveal more evidence?

The Trump conspiracy theory however is that, seemingly, Biden masterminded the whole election of 2016 in the Ukraine... by hacking the DNC... and making it look like Russia did it.... to leak DNC files that damaged the DNC, and vaulted Trump up in the polls... so that they could play a long con to impeach Trump (rather than just beat him in an election) by claiming he was helped by Russia... - it's a mess. It makes little sense.

I haven't been paying much attention to the TCT as you call it. But there does seem to be very real evidence that Biden did withhold funds to get a Ukrainian minister fired. The crux of the argument is WHY he did that and that what goal.

Veritas Libertas

Overheal wrote: »

It will boil down to that, for that charge, yes. It doesn't look good for him how cloak and dagger this all is - nor does it look good that Ukraine thus far has only spoken to Biden's exculpatories.

It just seems hypocritical to me that Biden is exculpated so quickly, yet everyone knows Trump did it for his own purposes. They did the same thing, what is in question is "was it for their personal gain?". Biden surely stood to gain by not having his son investigated. So why the exculpation?

In articles of impeachment expect Volume II of the Mueller Report to come back up: these are things that, frankly, should have been impeachable, however its too hard to explain to a tuned-out populace, and wasn't a strong enough reason to try and impeach the president in a sympathetic Senate. Doesn't mean the charges wont be included now though.

So it is more becoming an abundance of evidence rather than 'smoking gun' evidence. This doesn't sit well with me.

Overheal

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

It just seems hypocritical to me that Biden is exculpated so quickly, yet everyone knows Trump did it for his own purposes. They did the same thing, what is in question is "was it for their personal gain?". Biden surely stood to gain by not having his son investigated. So why the exculpation?

So it is more becoming an abundance of evidence rather than 'smoking gun' evidence. This doesn't sit well with me.

In fact, the prosecutor wasn’t investigating. That’s why the state department, the EU and the IMF backed the action to hold up the loan. Biden didn’t take action alone and didn’t really stand to benefit; if it was Investigation he wanted to avoid keeping the prosecutor on would have been better for him. As you said, he would have something to gain if the aim was to shield Burisma from investigation but it’s the opposite.

Overheal

Veritas Libertas wrote: »

Was this him abandoning tradition? I don't see the relevance, maybe you can explain further.

official business of the office of the President being handled by the President’s private attorney is irregular to say the least. If Obama had used his private legal team to investigate the Trump Campaign - could you not imagine how outrageous that would be?

That's another story .. What does the Russia interference have to do with Ukraine(apologies if I missed this somewhere)

that’s the TCT and the one he’s trying to prove: that Russia didn’t interfere in the election, that it was actually Ukraine staging a false flag attack on DNC servers to make Trump look bad in 2016.

I don't trust Giuliani as far as I could throw him. Is it expected that his testimony will shed more light on this issue/reveal more evidence?

it should since Guliani went on national TV and waved his phone around to prove that he has documents, texts, etc. that Congress is not in possession of. That’s part of his subpoena, which mentions directly his claims of evidence on live tv.

notobtuse

Document showing Ukrainian prosecutor saying under oath he was fired for investigating Hunter Biden:

https://www.scribd.com/document/427618359/Shokin-Statement

Take notice to points 8-12. Isn't this enough to start an investigation into the matter?

Overheal

Guliani lawyered up with Watergate prosecutor

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/rudy-lawyers-up-taps-watergate-prosecutor-jon-sale-to-represent-him-in-ukraine-probe/