Time to Impeach Joe Biden (Poll)

[Faun]

You couldn't quote the transcribed section of the Zelensky phone call that broke ANY US law. You're a garden variety partisan liar.

Read the full text of Trump's conversation with the Ukrainian president

Trump is facing allegations that he tried to strong-arm a foreign leader into launching an investigation that might hurt Democratic contender Joe Biden.

www.nbcnews.com

Here's the quote you deny is a crime...

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...​

... that was Trump, soliciting a campaign contribution by having a political opponent investigated for blackmail.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yeah, except Burisma was NEVER investigated, so Biden earned Hunters $80,000 a month.

That’s not true either.

Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds

Ukraine has widened its investigation into the founder of energy company Burisma to include suspicion of embezzling state funds, Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Ukraine widens probe against Burisma founder to embezzlement of state funds

Ukraine has widened its investigation into the founder of energy company Burisma to include suspicion of embezzling state funds, Prosecutor General Ruslan Ryaboshapka said on Wednesday.

www.reuters.com

Fact check: Biden leveraged $1B in aid to Ukraine to oust corrupt prosecutor, not to help his son

Despite a Senate GOP investigation that found no wrongdoing by Joe Biden on foreign policy in Ukraine, claims to the contrary continue to circulate.

www.usatoday.com

The money machine: how a high-profile corruption investigation fell apart | Ukraine | The Guardian

The long read: After a revolution overthrew Ukraine’s disgraced president, Theresa May promised to help the country’s new leaders recover stolen assets. But the UK’s first case collapsed within a year

amp.theguardian.com

Try again.

 

[Dragonlady]

Here's the list. Out of 17 witnesses there are several democrats. Fiona Hill for one, duh. Google them is you're still curious. Fiona was the one who told Obama to send Ukraine MREs and blankets (non-lethal aid) in their fight with Russia. Trump sent them Javelin anti-tank missiles (lethal aid), duh.

Who are the 17 witnesses in the Trump impeachment inquiry and what have they said?

Here are the witnesses who have been interviewed in the Trump impeachment inquiry, why they matter and what we know about their testimony.

www.usatoday.com

Fiona Hill was a Republican who was hired by George Bush. John Bolton brought her into the White House.

There were no Democrats working in the White House. None they all left when Trump came in and he put his own people in place.

You’re gonna have to try harder. Unlike Trump, Obama kept a lot of Republicans on.

 

[Faun]

Selling influence is a crime. Failing to uphold the LAWs of the US is abuse of power, etc.
I'm sure the House Republicans can list more than a few Articles of impeachment.

You have no evidence Joe Biden sold influence.

 

[kyzr]

When Democrats impeached Trump, they at least had an actual articulated allegation. Trump used various policies, like providing military aid, to get Zelensky to harm Biden’s campaign.
Your allegation can’t even be fully articulated. Biden received money from people in other countries to do “fill in the blank later”.
I don’t think you guys realize how hard this case is going to be and how Comer really doesn’t really seem up to the task.

If you're right Joe has nothing to worry about.
If I'm right Joe gets impeached.
We'll see.

I agree that when the FBI (and DOJ) covers up for Biden instead of doing real investigations, Biden has little to worry about.
Then again, there's always a loose end somewhere that can nail the Bidens.

 

[kyzr]

That's correct, Shokin never investigated Burisma. Which means Biden wasn't blackmailing Poroshenko to protect his son's job.

Shokin was investigating Burisma, that's why Biden wanted him gone.
After Biden had Shokin fired the investigation of Burisma STOPPED. Biden protected Hunter's $80,000 a month CASH COW.

Viktor Shokin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shokin, in a sworn affidavit dated September 4, 2019 for a court in Austria, stated that "The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors." Shokin continued, stating that, "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014. US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump. On February 27, 2020, a Ukrainian court ruling forced investigators to open a probe on Joe Biden's pressure on Poroshenko to fire Shokin. The investigation was closed in November 2020 after the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States.

 

[kyzr]

It's a campaign contribution.

What is a campaign contribution? The FEC didn't bring any indictment or fine. If the FEC says its ok, its ok.
Investigating crime/corruption is NOT illegal, it's his job.

I know, democrats are criminals, so protecting democrat criminals is what they do.

 

[kyzr]

That’s not a legal opinion. FOX news is lying when they tell you it is. It’s a denial of the allegation of withholding funds, coupled with an expression of outrage. “How dare you accuse us. Our office would never do any such thing”. The phrase that jumps out to me is that their first priority is the “President’s wishes”.
A legal opinion would read: The OMB withheld the Congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, in compliance with [Section, paragraph, subparagraph] of the [name of law, policy etc.] which reads as follows: and then repeats the rule under which aid was withheld.
A legal opinion, would then go on to cite other instances where this regulation was applied to demonstrate this was routine practice.
The failure to cite any specifics law, regulation or policy, is basically an admission of the allegations. All of the conditions stipulated in the Congressional appropriation had been complied with within weeks of the appropriation being passed.
This is the kind of bullshit stuff that Fox News, routinely pulls, to keep you misinformed and believing Trumps lies.

The FACT that the democrat impeachment managers didn't get a ruling from the USSC says that its not illegal.
If the courts said that GAO is right, and the OMB is wrong you would have a point.

 

[kyzr]

Here's the quote you deny is a crime...

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...​

... that was Trump, soliciting a campaign contribution by having a political opponent investigated for blackmail.

That was Trump asking Z to see if Biden getting Shokin fired was a crime, since Hunter was getting $80,000 a month from Burisma for a no-show job.
There was no campaign contribution. So said the FEC by NOT indicting or fining Trump.

 

[kyzr]

That’s not true either.
Try again.

It is true. Lutsenko killed any investigations into Burisma.

read my post #246 for more info

 

[kyzr]

You have no evidence Joe Biden sold influence.

Follow the money, see the influence.
Biden let the Chinese spy balloon fly all across the US, even over highly classified sites.
Biden sold SPR oil to China via Hunter's oil subsidiary
Biden's war on US oil means that China supplies the batteries we need
Biden's abandonment of $85b of US military equipment in AFG means that China can reverse engineer everything
Biden's banked $3.5m from the Moscow mayor's wife
Biden's banked $1.5b that China gave Hunter to "invest"
Biden's scored Chinese diamonds
Hunter sold paintings to anonymous buyers for $$$$$$$$$
Biden stole classified documents that he could NOT declassify. For sale???

That's not even including all the cash the House money trackers found. Stay tuned, whistleblowers have lots of goodies.

 

[Dragonlady]

Here's the quote you deny is a crime...

There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it...​

... that was Trump, soliciting a campaign contribution by having a political opponent investigated for blackmail.

It should be noted that “There’s a lot of talk”, is not evidence of a crime, especially when Donald Trump instigated “the talk” in the first place.

Furthermore, Joe Biden has never bragged that he “stopped the prosecution” of Burisma. Biden bragged that he fired the corrupt Russian prosecutor who was refusing to investigate corruption in the Ukraine.

All of the newspaper articles and stories that were printed at the time that this happened or still available on the Internet if you would just go and look for them, or read the links that we’ve posted dozens of times.

The FACT that the democrat impeachment managers didn't get a ruling from the USSC says that its not illegal.
If the courts said that GAO is right, and the OMB is wrong you would have a point.

Why would the Supreme Court rule on an opinion of the GOA? Especially when the OMB cited no regulation, under which their withholding of these funds was legal.

Name any legal proceeding, where in the one of the defendants can give an unsupported “opinion” that they did nothing illegal, and have that court accept that unsupported opinion?

Your post makes no legal sense whatsoever.

 

[Faun]

Shokin was investigating Burisma, that's why Biden wanted him gone.

LOL

Now even you call you a liar. Earlier, you said, "Burisma was NEVER investigated."

After Biden had Shokin fired the investigation of Burisma STOPPED. Biden protected Hunter's $80,000 a month CASH COW.

And that's bullshit, which is why you can't prove it. You have no proof Burisma was ever being actively investigated by Shokin. Even Shokin has indicated that. And Shokin's replacement did go after Burisma and won a conviction against Zlochevsky on taxes, securing a $7½ million fine. And guess what? Hunter didn't lose his job when that happened.

Viktor Shokin - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Shokin, in a sworn affidavit dated September 4, 2019 for a court in Austria, stated that "The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors." Shokin continued, stating that, "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014. US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump. On February 27, 2020, a Ukrainian court ruling forced investigators to open a probe on Joe Biden's pressure on Poroshenko to fire Shokin. The investigation was closed in November 2020 after the election of Joe Biden as President of the United States.

Yes, Shoken said, "but I refused to close this investigation." That was true. What's also true was despite there being an open investigation, Shokin wasn't actively pursuing it. He was protecting Zlochevsky, not investigating him. Even the UK opened their own investigation into Zlochevsky. They had to shut it down after nearly a year of Shokin refusing to cooperate with them.

 

[Marener]

If you're right Joe has nothing to worry about.
If I'm right Joe gets impeached.
We'll see.

I agree that when the FBI (and DOJ) covers up for Biden instead of doing real investigations, Biden has little to worry about.
Then again, there's always a loose end somewhere that can nail the Bidens.

So the entire premise of the thread is that you’re ready to start impeachment. Apparently that’s not the case since you can’t even identify what he’s being impeached for.

I have little doubt that you’ll never admit you’re wrong. If Biden isn’t impeached, you’ll make an excuse to avoid admitting your error just like you make excuses about the DoJ “covering” for him, a totally baseless accusation.

 

[Faun]

What is a campaign contribution? The FEC didn't bring any indictment or fine. If the FEC says its ok, its ok.
Investigating crime/corruption is NOT illegal, it's his job.

I know, democrats are criminals, so protecting democrat criminals is what they do.

The FEC never said it was ok. And that's the same FEC which wouldn't go after Trump over hush money to a porn star because they felt prosecuting Cohen for it was sufficient enough and that they had better things to do.

A campaign contribution is anything of value to a campaign. Making your opponent appear involved in potentially illegal activity by opening an investigation is something of value. Hence, a campaign contribution.

 

[Dragonlady]

If you're right Joe has nothing to worry about.

If I'm right Joe gets impeached.
We'll see.

I agree that when the FBI (and DOJ) covers up for Biden instead of doing real investigations, Biden has little to worry about.

Then again, there's always a loose end somewhere that can nail the Bidens.

“We know that Hillary is guilty, and we’re going to keep investigating her until we prove it”.

All of this “evidence” was in the hands of the DOJ, the Treasury Department, and the IRS throughout the entire time that Donald Trump was President. Hunter Biden had to clean up all of his tax filings and pay both the taxes owing and fines/penalties involved in the late filings.

It would’ve been very very foolish of Hunter Biden to lie about his finances, while the IRS was all up his ass, and the Trump Administration looking for an excuse to prosecute him.

The bald fact is that you’ve had six years of investigating all things Hunter Biden and you still don’t have a shred of evidence that any of his business dealings were illegal.

Or that Joe Biden had any part in any of his son’s business dealings.

 

[Faun]

That was Trump asking Z to see if Biden getting Shokin fired was a crime, since Hunter was getting $80,000 a month from Burisma for a no-show job.
There was no campaign contribution. So said the FEC by NOT indicting or fining Trump.

Which is something of value to Trump's campaign.

 

[Faun]

Follow the money, see the influence.
Biden let the Chinese spy balloon fly all across the US, even over highly classified sites.
Biden sold SPR oil to China via Hunter's oil subsidiary
Biden's war on US oil means that China supplies the batteries we need
Biden's abandonment of $85b of US military equipment in AFG means that China can reverse engineer everything
Biden's banked $3.5m from the Moscow mayor's wife
Biden's banked $1.5b that China gave Hunter to "invest"
Biden's scored Chinese diamonds
Hunter sold paintings to anonymous buyers for $$$$$$$$$
Biden stole classified documents that he could NOT declassify. For sale???

That's not even including all the cash the House money trackers found. Stay tuned, whistleblowers have lots of goodies.

Again, you're attributing money to Joe that actually went to Hunter. And guessing things like, "for sale?" is nothing but your imagination manufacturing a scandal. Nothing you posted indicates Joe Biden was paid to influence anything.

 

[Dragonlady]

I know, democrats are criminals, so protecting democrat criminals is what they do.

Basic problem that you have is that you know “the Democrats are criminals”. You start with that conclusion, and then look for evidence to support it.

That’s the premise of every Republican investigation of Democrats. The Democrats are guilty, and we’re going to find the evidence to prove it. And it fails every single time.

Instead of following actual evidence uncovered, anything that doesn’t point to the Democrat’s guilt, is dismissed as “lies”. Most of the Clinton Investigations ended with a report stating not only that they found no evidence that the Clinton’s committed a crime, they found no evidence that any crime was committed.

Uranium One being a case in point. Every investigation of Uranium One, and there have been several of them, says that Hillary did nothing on that file except sign a Consent her technical department advised her to sign on behalf of the State Department.

The “bribe” was paid to the Clinton Foundation a full two years after the Uranium One deal closed. Bribes are generally paid to get the clearances necessary to close the deal. Why would you need to bribe someone two years after you close the deal?

The fact that multiple agencies have been looking at these transactions for years and found nothing amiss, speaks volumes. Hunter Biden’s explanation of these transactions is both reasonable and consistent with similar overseas investment and consulting groups.

As previously pointed out, Burisma didn’t fire Hunter Biden when it’s Chairman was prosecuted and fined. And as I pointed out, they didn’t fire him when his father was out of office, and no help to them at all. Hunter. Biden left when his father announced he was running for President.

Last but not least, nothing in the documents, presented by Comer in either of his Memos, supports the narrative he is spinning. It’s easy to convince those not involved in the fields of accounting or tax law, that this “looks shady”. The first time I saw one of these deals my reaction was “what are we trying to do here?”, and “is this all legal?”.

After reading the first few pages of Comer’s Memo, it was clear that’s what he was doing. A friend who used to work in international banking, asked me for the link, and he concurred with my assessment of the memo. That was before Time magazine, called it “a swing and a miss”.

 

[kyzr]

Why would the Supreme Court rule on an opinion of the GOA? Especially when the OMB cited no regulation, under which their withholding of these funds was legal.
Name any legal proceeding, where in the one of the defendants can give an unsupported “opinion” that they did nothing illegal, and have that court accept that unsupported opinion?
Your post makes no legal sense whatsoever.

There was a legal disagreement. The USSC would have made the call if the dems were serious, they were not.
The impeachment was just political theatrics that the senate saw thru.