Could we put the lies about Biden to bed now?

[colfax_m]

House rules aren’t criminal law silly.

So you're saying that Nadler can just ignore House rules? Isn't your whole justification for the Soviet show trial the claim that Dims are following House rules?

I’m saying he won’t be criminally charged for violating them.

Can Nadless ignore House rules or not?

I don't know. Who is going to stop him?

You turds keep claiming that the Dim show trial is credible because Nadless and Schiffferbrains are following the rules, but you admit there are no rules.

This happened yesterday, right?

 

[dannyboys]

Rudy would not be still turning over rocks in Ukraine if he wasn't 100% positive he has an airtight case against the Bidens
He knows something that will end Joe from having seven year old boys playing with his leg hair in the Oval office.

 

[bripat9643]

Suck it up, OUR legal system is premised on "innocent until proven guilty". Stuff your BS cry baby.

Is not our legal system also based on NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW??

No president is below the law either, you fucking moron. He has all the same rights as any other American.

The right to hide evidence???Is that in your copy of the constitution bri?

What evidence did he hide, moron?

Ignoring subpoenas and preventing document disclosures is hiding evidence.

NOT. That's called "pursuing the legal process." It's like saying that hiring a lawyer is obstruction of justice.

You're an imbecile.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It's the same thing left wingers do in regard to Trump.

Is it? What shit have Dems been throwing around about Trump that isn't legit?

 

[colfax_m]

Schiff isn’t a fact witness. His credibility is irrelevant.

The same goes for every "witness" the Dims asked to testify. None of them were fact witnesses.

That's not true at all.

It sure as hell is true.

Everyone called as a witness was present during relevant portions in Ukraine at the time of the events. They're fact witnesses.

None of them listened in on the phone call, moron, nor did they participate in any events related to the phone call. They are all just resentful petulant children who got their nose out of joint because Trump ignored their useless advice.

Isn't it fun when you call me a moron but don't know what you're talking about? Alexander Vindman was in on the call.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, not corrupt at all to funnel million of dollars to VPOTUS family

Show us, dope.

Again? You were too fucking stupid to grasp it the first thousand times.....

 

[bripat9643]

The same goes for every "witness" the Dims asked to testify. None of them were fact witnesses.

That's not true at all.

It sure as hell is true.

Everyone called as a witness was present during relevant portions in Ukraine at the time of the events. They're fact witnesses.

None of them listened in on the phone call, moron, nor did they participate in any events related to the phone call. They are all just resentful petulant children who got their nose out of joint because Trump ignored their useless advice.

Isn't it fun when you call me a moron but don't know what you're talking about? Alexander Vindman was in on the call.

Did he contradict anything in the transcript?

 

[edward37]

So you're saying that Nadler can just ignore House rules? Isn't your whole justification for the Soviet show trial the claim that Dims are following House rules?

I’m saying he won’t be criminally charged for violating them.

Can Nadless ignore House rules or not?

I don't know. Who is going to stop him?

You turds keep claiming that the Dim show trial is credible because Nadless and Schiffferbrains are following the rules, but you admit there are no rules.

This happened yesterday, right?

The rules are all REPUBLICAN rules and it's a fair trial Trump was invited and refused

 

[colfax_m]

Is not our legal system also based on NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW??

No president is below the law either, you fucking moron. He has all the same rights as any other American.

The right to hide evidence???Is that in your copy of the constitution bri?

What evidence did he hide, moron?

Ignoring subpoenas and preventing document disclosures is hiding evidence.

NOT. That's called "pursuing the legal process." It's like saying that hiring a lawyer is obstruction of justice.

You're an imbecile.

Pursuing the legal process? Trump is not pursuing any legal process. He just had people ignore them. If Trump were pursuing a legal process, he would have filed court motions challenging them. He did not.

 

[Oddball]

Suck it up, OUR legal system is premised on "innocent until proven guilty". Stuff your BS cry baby.

Is not our legal system also based on NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW??

No president is below the law either, you fucking moron. He has all the same rights as any other American.

The right to hide evidence???Is that in your copy of the constitution bri?

What evidence did he hide, moron?

Ignoring subpoenas and preventing document disclosures is hiding evidence.

If those people and documents were required by law to appear and be disclosed, then Schitt would have clear legal authority to arrest the people and seize the documents....You would greatly benefit from knowing something other than blabbering points from the DNC and agitprop media.

 

[colfax_m]

That's not true at all.

It sure as hell is true.

Everyone called as a witness was present during relevant portions in Ukraine at the time of the events. They're fact witnesses.

None of them listened in on the phone call, moron, nor did they participate in any events related to the phone call. They are all just resentful petulant children who got their nose out of joint because Trump ignored their useless advice.

Isn't it fun when you call me a moron but don't know what you're talking about? Alexander Vindman was in on the call.

Did he contradict anything in the transcript?

Yes, he did actually. Did you not pay attention to the testimony? It's getting really annoying having to bring you up to speed on the matter all the while you keep calling me names.

 

[bripat9643]

I’m saying he won’t be criminally charged for violating them.

Can Nadless ignore House rules or not?

I don't know. Who is going to stop him?

You turds keep claiming that the Dim show trial is credible because Nadless and Schiffferbrains are following the rules, but you admit there are no rules.

This happened yesterday, right?

The rules are all REPUBLICAN rules and it's a fair trial Trump was invited and refused

It's a show trial, and all the leftwingers in here have defended it by claiming it's not a trial. I don't recall Republicans ever voting on rules for impeachments.

 

[colfax_m]

Is not our legal system also based on NO PRESIDENT IS ABOVE THE LAW??

No president is below the law either, you fucking moron. He has all the same rights as any other American.

The right to hide evidence???Is that in your copy of the constitution bri?

What evidence did he hide, moron?

Ignoring subpoenas and preventing document disclosures is hiding evidence.

If those people and documents were required by law to appear and be disclosed, then Schitt would have clear legal authority to arrest the people and seize the documents....You would greatly benefit from knowing something other than blabbering points from the DNC and agitprop media.

Schiff would be within his power to have the seargant at arms arrest them and hold them until they complied. He has chosen not to because that's a very extreme step.

What do you think would happen if you or me chose to ignore a subpoena?

 

[colfax_m]

Can Nadless ignore House rules or not?

I don't know. Who is going to stop him?

You turds keep claiming that the Dim show trial is credible because Nadless and Schiffferbrains are following the rules, but you admit there are no rules.

This happened yesterday, right?

The rules are all REPUBLICAN rules and it's a fair trial Trump was invited and refused

It's a show trial, and all the leftwingers in here have defended it by claiming it's not a trial. I don't recall Republicans ever voting on rules for impeachments.

A few years ago Republicans changed committee rules to railroad the Democrats, then in the minority, so that they could engage in their witch hunt against Hillary Clinton (to harm her candidacy). It made the tiniest of splash in the media but it's the truth.

Now it's coming back to bite them in the ass.

 

[edward37]

Bri and knowitalls guy
Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a ...

https://www.usatoday.com › elections › donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles
Jun 1, 2016 - USA TODAY analysis finds 3500 legal actions by and against Trump, fighting everyone from the government to the vodka makers.

Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases ...
‎Lawsuits 1973–1999 · ‎Lawsuits 2000–2009 · ‎Lawsuits 2010–present

 

[bripat9643]

It sure as hell is true.

Everyone called as a witness was present during relevant portions in Ukraine at the time of the events. They're fact witnesses.

None of them listened in on the phone call, moron, nor did they participate in any events related to the phone call. They are all just resentful petulant children who got their nose out of joint because Trump ignored their useless advice.

Isn't it fun when you call me a moron but don't know what you're talking about? Alexander Vindman was in on the call.

Did he contradict anything in the transcript?

Yes, he did actually. Did you not pay attention to the testimony? It's getting really annoying having to bring you up to speed on the matter all the while you keep calling me names.

Yes, you are right, he claimed the transcript was edited. However, no one else does, and his claim is absurd on its face. If the transcript was edited, then who did it? There are plenty of people responsible for the document who could confirm Vindman's claim, but Schiffferbrains couldn't produce any them.

 

[bripat9643]

Bri and knowitalls guy
Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a ...

https://www.usatoday.com › elections › donald-trump-lawsuits-legal-battles
Jun 1, 2016 - USA TODAY analysis finds 3500 legal actions by and against Trump, fighting everyone from the government to the vodka makers.

Legal affairs of Donald Trump - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump
An analysis by USA Today published in June 2016 found that over the previous three decades, Donald Trump and his businesses have been involved in 3,500 legal cases ...
‎Lawsuits 1973–1999 · ‎Lawsuits 2000–2009 · ‎Lawsuits 2010–present

Unprecedented for a President, but entirely normal for a building contractor and developer.

 

[edward37]

Russia are you listening?? And the pos will try again

 

[CowboyTed]

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visit in December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”
Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance
...................................................................................................................................................
Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything,' former Ukrainian prosecutor says
Hunter Biden 'did not violate anything,' former Ukrainian prosecutor says

A former Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated a gas company tied to Hunter Biden said Thursday that there was no evidence the former vice president's son engaged in illegal activity.

"From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” Yuriy Lutsenko told The Washington Post.
....................................................................................................................................................
Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine

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.
Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine
......................................................................................................................................
Is there any evidence Old Joe pushed to have Shokin removed because of his kid's involvement with Burisma? No. How could there be since Shokin was not investigating Burisma? A fact that contributed to Shokin's dismissal demanded by the EU and the IMF for NOT adequately investigating corruption in Ukraine.

All the facts in evidence point to Trump's demand that an announcement be made the Bidens were being investigated by Ukraine had nothing to do with a realistic expectation anything nefarious would be found. Rather, Ukraine's acquiescence to conduct an investigation was what Don wanted because he knew it was enough to smear Biden.

Trump's belief has been borne out. Even though no investigation was launched and no evidence of wrongdoing exists millions of gullible rubes have it in their easily manipulated heads Biden is guilty of something............based on unsubstantiated innuendo.

As for Hunter getting a job from Burisma, Hunter was a non-executive director, this is a not on hands role and is usually given to trusted well known names, as an example Burisma hired the ex President of Poland at the same time. They bring credibility to the company and a lot of politicians become non executive directors after politics.

George H. W. Bush was non executive in the Carlyle Group.
Paul Ryan is on the Board of Fox corp, what does this economics grad know about Media?

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?

Cantor is a lawyer, what is he doing on the board of an Investment company...

Why they are all hired is to give shareholders and possible investors a known name on there board. i.e. someone to keep an eye on things...

The Biden Name in Ukraine represents opposition to corruption (i.e. his Dad got a corrupt prosecutor fired), it was a smart move by them... They were embroil in a scandal (which turned up nothing and was over seen by the for mentioned corrupt prosecutor). They wanted to project an image of cleaning up corruption.

 

[colfax_m]

Everyone called as a witness was present during relevant portions in Ukraine at the time of the events. They're fact witnesses.

None of them listened in on the phone call, moron, nor did they participate in any events related to the phone call. They are all just resentful petulant children who got their nose out of joint because Trump ignored their useless advice.

Isn't it fun when you call me a moron but don't know what you're talking about? Alexander Vindman was in on the call.

Did he contradict anything in the transcript?

Yes, he did actually. Did you not pay attention to the testimony? It's getting really annoying having to bring you up to speed on the matter all the while you keep calling me names.

Yes, you are right, he claimed the transcript was edited. However, no one else does, and his claim is absurd on its face. If the transcript was edited, then who did it? There are plenty of people responsible for the document who could confirm Vindman's claim, but Schiffferbrains couldn't produce any them.

No one else who was in on the call has testified before Congress. NSC and White House staffers edited the call.

It's rich that you are criticizing Schiff for failing to prove Vindman's claim with other witnesses when Trump is the one preventing any other witnesses from testifying. That's not a legitimate criticism, is it?