Could we put the lies about Biden to bed now?

[bripat9643]

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.

That's how the legal process works in disputes between Congress and the executive branch. They make their demands, the President refuses, and they pursue it with the courts if they are serious.

 

[Oddball]

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?

View attachment 293688

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.

Nice spin, comrade.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Schiffferbrains failed to call a single one of these White House or NSC staffers. That's because he already knew they would not confirm Vindman's story. Doing so would be admitting to dereliction of duty.

 

[colfax_m]

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.

That's how the legal process works in disputes between Congress and the executive branch. They make their demands, the President refuses, and they pursue it with the courts if they are serious.

Incorrect. If the President has two options when they receive a subpoena. One is comply. Two is challenge it in court. Doing nothing is not a legal option.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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.

Comrade, did Mr. Vindman say that the President asked for something in return for the aid? Or did he testify that he heard from CNN that such a demand was made?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

If Trump couldn't stop Vindman or Sondland from testifying, then how could he stop anyone else from testifying? If these people were forced to testify, do you actually imagine that they would say anything incriminating about Trump?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Schiffferbrains failed to call a single one of these White House or NSC staffers. That's because he already knew they would not confirm Vindman's story. Doing so would be admitting to dereliction of duty.

You know when you call people names and then make a claim that isn't factually true?

You're doing it again.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's how the legal process works in disputes between Congress and the executive branch. They make their demands, the President refuses, and they pursue it with the courts if they are serious.

Incorrect. If the President has two options when they receive a subpoena. One is comply. Two is challenge it in court. Doing nothing is not a legal option.

You mean Obama should be impeached?

 

[colfax_m]

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?

If Trump couldn't stop Vindman or Sondland from testifying, then how could he stop anyone else from testifying? If these people were forced to testify, do you actually imagine that they would say anything incriminating about Trump?

People have been instructed by Trump not to comply. That's a direct order from their superior. People can choose to ignore him at their own risk. Vindman and Sondland had to disobey Trump. This is a cute line, but it's not going to fly.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Then let him do it, and we'll see how that plays out.

So you believe impeachment is not an "extreme step?"

 

[Uncensored2008]

[
Incorrect. If the President has two options when they receive a subpoena. One is comply. Two is challenge it in court. Doing nothing is not a legal option.

Comrade, so the Executive is an INFERIOR branch of government subservient not only to Congress, but to the house? Can you show the class where the Constitution spells this out?

You have HEARD of the Constitution, haven't you?

 

[colfax_m]

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.

That's how the legal process works in disputes between Congress and the executive branch. They make their demands, the President refuses, and they pursue it with the courts if they are serious.

Incorrect. If the President has two options when they receive a subpoena. One is comply. Two is challenge it in court. Doing nothing is not a legal option.

You mean Obama should be impeached?

Obama was never subject to an impeachment inquiry.

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Then let him do it, and we'll see how that plays out.

So you believe impeachment is not an "extreme step?"

Some want him to, but that's a pretty extreme step.

What do you think would happen if we ignored a subpoena?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

That's how the legal process works in disputes between Congress and the executive branch. They make their demands, the President refuses, and they pursue it with the courts if they are serious.

Incorrect. If the President has two options when they receive a subpoena. One is comply. Two is challenge it in court. Doing nothing is not a legal option.

You mean Obama should be impeached?

Obama was never subject to an impeachment inquiry.

You just said he obstructed justice, didn't you?

 

[colfax_m]

[
Incorrect. If the President has two options when they receive a subpoena. One is comply. Two is challenge it in court. Doing nothing is not a legal option.

Comrade, so the Executive is an INFERIOR branch of government subservient not only to Congress, but to the house? Can you show the class where the Constitution spells this out?

You have HEARD of the Constitution, haven't you?

Who said they were inferior? I said they have obligations to allow oversight. There are checks and balances. The house oversight of the executive is a check on their power.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Then let him do it, and we'll see how that plays out.

So you believe impeachment is not an "extreme step?"

Some want him to, but that's a pretty extreme step.

What do you think would happen if we ignored a subpoena?

Who is "we?" If you ignore a subpoena from Congress, nothing will happen. They have no way to enforce it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

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?

If Trump couldn't stop Vindman or Sondland from testifying, then how could he stop anyone else from testifying? If these people were forced to testify, do you actually imagine that they would say anything incriminating about Trump?

People have been instructed by Trump not to comply. That's a direct order from their superior. People can choose to ignore him at their own risk. Vindman and Sondland had to disobey Trump. This is a cute line, but it's not going to fly.

And?

Let's remind you, in case you are tempted to lie;

{
When he was asked by the Republican counsel, “To the best of your knowledge, do you know about any preconditions on the aid?” he responded, “No.”

“There were a lot of rumors swirling around as to why the aid had been held up, including they wanted a review, they wanted Europe to do more. There were all kinds of rumors,” he added.

He said he called the president on September 9, 2019, to find out what he wanted from Ukraine.

“He said: ‘I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing.’ And I said: ‘What does that mean?’ And he said: ‘I want him to do what he ran on.’ And that was the end of the conversation.”}

Transcript Reveals Gordon Sondland Never Knew of Any 'Quid Pro Quo'

 

[colfax_m]

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?

Then let him do it, and we'll see how that plays out.

So you believe impeachment is not an "extreme step?"

Some want him to, but that's a pretty extreme step.

What do you think would happen if we ignored a subpoena?

Who is "we?" If you ignore a subpoena from Congress, nothing will happen. They have no way to enforce it.

Interesting. So you're saying that ignoring Congressional subpoenas is perfectly okay?

Does that apply to Hillary Clinton to?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama was never subject to an impeachment inquiry.

And yet was 10,000 times more shady than Trump. How do you explain that? Oh, two different laws, I get it.

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Then let him do it, and we'll see how that plays out.

So you believe impeachment is not an "extreme step?"

Some want him to, but that's a pretty extreme step.

What do you think would happen if we ignored a subpoena?

Who is "we?" If you ignore a subpoena from Congress, nothing will happen. They have no way to enforce it.

Interesting. So you're saying that ignoring Congressional subpoenas is perfectly okay?

Does that apply to Hillary Clinton to?

I'm saying that Congress has no means of enforcing them, just was there's no way to enforce the worthless rules that Congress makes for itself.