You really don't want Biden to testify...

Because you then are going to have to ask some current republican senators to testify.

View attachment 303155

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption
February 12, 2016 | Press Releases

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Ukraine Caucus, and Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on European Affairs spearheaded a letter expressing concern to Ukrainian President Poroshenko regarding the recent resignation of Minister of Economy Aivaras Abromavi?ius, who has alleged that corruption remains a dire challenge within the Ukrainian political system. In the letter, Portman, Durbin, and Shaheen said they recognized the challenges facing the Ukrainian government two years after the Maidan brought positive change to Ukraine. They also reaffirmed their commitment to help President Poroshenko confront the duel threat posed by Russian aggression in Ukraine as well as entrenched corruption in the government and to create a transparent and democratic government. The letter was also signed by Senators Ron Johnson (R-WI), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).

“We recognize ‎that your governing coalition faces not only endemic corruption left from decades of mismanagement and cronyism, but also an illegal armed seizure of territory by Russia and its proxies,” the senators wrote. “Tackling such obstacles to reforms amidst a war and the loss of much of southeastern Ukraine’s economic productivity is a formidable challenge -- one which we remain committed to helping you overcome.”

Portman, Durbin, Shaheen, and Senate Ukraine Caucus Reaffirm Commitment to Help Ukraine Take on Corruption | Senator Rob Portman

This press release is from the office of Republican Sen. Rob Portman.

There was no Biden corruption. trump knows this.
There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.
Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.
Evidence of WHAT? Nobody has ever claimed anything other than “I heard”. Not a single jury in this country would convict someone on hearsay. Now you want Bolton because you’re convinced he’s got something you need. Guess what.. he doesn’t :lol:
How do you know what Bolton has?
 
There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.
Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.
Evidence of WHAT? Nobody has ever claimed anything other than “I heard”. Not a single jury in this country would convict someone on hearsay. Now you want Bolton because you’re convinced he’s got something you need. Guess what.. he doesn’t :lol:
How do you know what Bolton has?
Nancy just announced a NEW BOMBSHELL!
0503a77cc57d5cb8209c6b7d9381f70b.jpg
 
There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.
Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.
Evidence of WHAT? Nobody has ever claimed anything other than “I heard”. Not a single jury in this country would convict someone on hearsay. Now you want Bolton because you’re convinced he’s got something you need. Guess what.. he doesn’t :lol:
How do you know what Bolton has?
Breaking News: Bolton just announced he has Corona Virus.
5e32b2f924306a6f9b6edd52
 
There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.
Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.
Evidence of WHAT? Nobody has ever claimed anything other than “I heard”. Not a single jury in this country would convict someone on hearsay. Now you want Bolton because you’re convinced he’s got something you need. Guess what.. he doesn’t :lol:
How do you know what Bolton has?
Because I’m not a brainwashed retard.
 
I would love to see Hunter on the stand. Joe, not so much. He isn't as sharp as he once was and I fear he wouldn't stand up very well on cross because of it. He probably cant remember much from his VP days or before at this point. He recently remembered the JFK assassination taking place in the 1970's. Not his fault. It sucks getting old.
 
I would love to see Hunter on the stand. Joe, not so much. He isn't as sharp as he once was and I fear he wouldn't stand up very well on cross because of it. He probably cant remember much from his VP days or before at this point. He recently remembered the JFK assassination taking place in the 1970's. Not his fault. It sucks getting old.
You people are insane. He stole billions of our tax dollars and is a pedophile. Nobody has any remorse for his memory problems.
 
There is no reason for anyone to testify since we all know that the end result will be acquittal.

You wish. Unless the Trump party finds a bucket full of integrity, they will still acquit him, but there is still plenty of reason to question witnesses.
Um, I thought the House was supposed to present evidence from witnesses

And they have presented evidence from their investigation. This is now the trial. Trials have witnesses.
Evidence of WHAT? Nobody has ever claimed anything other than “I heard”. Not a single jury in this country would convict someone on hearsay. Now you want Bolton because you’re convinced he’s got something you need. Guess what.. he doesn’t :lol:
How do you know what Bolton has?

How do we know Schiff's contacts with the whistleblower?

What did the Bidens have to do in return for the millions they were paid for no show jobs?

I would love to hear them testify. But, it is better to end this charade and move on.
 
It hasn't been investigated yet, which is the entire point. It looks nefarious for certain.

It hasn’t been investigated because Trump didn’t take it to the DoJ. Trump doesn’t want an actual investigation.

Why would Trump not want an investigation into Biden? Is it to the benefit of the US to root out corruption in our government? Yes. Is there enough there there to warrant an investigation? Absolutely, with Biden's son on the board of one of the corporation being investigated and charged with tax evasion. For these two reasons alone, Trump's call with the Ukraine was completely justified and within his rights and obligations as the President of the United States. Does it ALSO happen to help him politically? Maybe, depending on if Joe is the nominee, but that is irrelevant given the other evidence. Maybe if the Democrats would stop running career crooked politicians they may not find themselves in this mess.

Hunter Biden has not been charged with tax evasion.

It was not illegal for him to sit on that board.

It was not illegal for Joe Biden to condition aid on the dismissal of the prosecutor.

Now if those two are connected, it would be. Is there any evidence those two are connected?

It is potentially illegal for Joe Biden to condition US aid on the dismissal of the prosecutor if done so to prevent his son from being caught up in an investigation. That is what we are talking about here. Just like Trump, it is all about intent. Republicans would have to prove Joe's intent, just as Democrats have to prove Trump's intent. It is not likely in either case.

So how would you go about proving either?

You investigate the Bidens. If it cannot be proven that Joe withheld the money to protect his son and that Hunter's high pay wasn't at all related to the aid, then Joe is in the clear. The problem with proving Trump's intent is that anyone with an open mind can see the potential corruption with regards to Ukraine and the Bidens, so Trump asking for them to investigate is perfectly legtimate to any reasonable person. Top that off with the fact that the victims of the supposed bribe didn't even know they were being bribed, which kind of blows the entire thing up to a thinking person.
 
It hasn’t been investigated because Trump didn’t take it to the DoJ. Trump doesn’t want an actual investigation.

Why would Trump not want an investigation into Biden? Is it to the benefit of the US to root out corruption in our government? Yes. Is there enough there there to warrant an investigation? Absolutely, with Biden's son on the board of one of the corporation being investigated and charged with tax evasion. For these two reasons alone, Trump's call with the Ukraine was completely justified and within his rights and obligations as the President of the United States. Does it ALSO happen to help him politically? Maybe, depending on if Joe is the nominee, but that is irrelevant given the other evidence. Maybe if the Democrats would stop running career crooked politicians they may not find themselves in this mess.

Hunter Biden has not been charged with tax evasion.

It was not illegal for him to sit on that board.

It was not illegal for Joe Biden to condition aid on the dismissal of the prosecutor.

Now if those two are connected, it would be. Is there any evidence those two are connected?

It is potentially illegal for Joe Biden to condition US aid on the dismissal of the prosecutor if done so to prevent his son from being caught up in an investigation. That is what we are talking about here. Just like Trump, it is all about intent. Republicans would have to prove Joe's intent, just as Democrats have to prove Trump's intent. It is not likely in either case.

So how would you go about proving either?

You investigate the Bidens. If it cannot be proven that Joe withheld the money to protect his son and that Hunter's high pay wasn't at all related to the aid, then Joe is in the clear. The problem with proving Trump's intent is that anyone with an open mind can see the potential corruption with regards to Ukraine and the Bidens, so Trump asking for them to investigate is perfectly legtimate to any reasonable person. Top that off with the fact that the victims of the supposed bribe didn't even know they were being bribed, which kind of blows the entire thing up to a thinking person.

Biden didn't withhold any money. He conducted foreign policy as he was instructed. Foreign policy that was supported by congress, the white house, the IMF, the EU, and the world bank.
 
The video tape is not what YOU think. It is Biden saying he is holding up aid to a foreign country unless they do what Obama wanted. I could have sworn this has been argued as a basis for Trump's impeachment. Was the aid Obama/Biden withheld appropriated by Congress?

Yes, but Congress put a stipulation on that aid that the Ukraine had to clean up corruption. Even Republicans voted for that.

More to the point, Biden was acting on the behest of not only Obama, but the IMF and the EU, both of which said Shonkin had to go before they would commit any more money to the Ukraine.
 
The video tape is not what YOU think. It is Biden saying he is holding up aid to a foreign country unless they do what Obama wanted. I could have sworn this has been argued as a basis for Trump's impeachment. Was the aid Obama/Biden withheld appropriated by Congress?

Yes, but Congress put a stipulation on that aid that the Ukraine had to clean up corruption. Even Republicans voted for that.

More to the point, Biden was acting on the behest of not only Obama, but the IMF and the EU, both of which said Shonkin had to go before they would commit any more money to the Ukraine.

At best, there was a process error in withholding the funds. Under the ICA(Congressional Budget and Impounding Control Act), the OMB(Office of Management and Budget) can withhold funds appropriated by Congress to "(1) to provide for contingencies;" but should submit a message to Congress in writing stating the reasons for the hold. "Contingencies" in this case would have been investigating corruption, which didn't magically disappear with the firing of Shokin in March of 2016. It should be rather obvious that Ukraine could very still have bad actors in late 2016. The message was not sent, but that is hardly an impeachable offense.
 
At best, there was a process error in withholding the funds. Under the ICA(Congressional Budget and Impounding Control Act), the OMB(Office of Management and Budget) can withhold funds appropriated by Congress to "(1) to provide for contingencies;" but should submit a message to Congress in writing stating the reasons for the hold. "Contingencies" in this case would have been investigating corruption, which didn't magically disappear with the firing of Shokin in March of 2016. It should be rather obvious that Ukraine could very still have bad actors in late 2016. The message was not sent, but that is hardly an impeachable offense.

Guy, here's the problem. Trump didn't go through the ICA or OMB or GAO to hold up funds. He did this whole secret channel diplomacy through Rudy the Bag Man to quietly pressure Zelensky to open a bogus investigation.

If everything Trump did was on the up and up, he should release ALL the documents and have EVERYONE testify.

It won't change much of anything, since the GOP has made it very clear they won't admit they made a mistake by letting him hijack their party. They just hope he gets voted out, dies of old age or term limits out so they won't have to face the wrath of his voters.
 
At best, there was a process error in withholding the funds. Under the ICA(Congressional Budget and Impounding Control Act), the OMB(Office of Management and Budget) can withhold funds appropriated by Congress to "(1) to provide for contingencies;" but should submit a message to Congress in writing stating the reasons for the hold. "Contingencies" in this case would have been investigating corruption, which didn't magically disappear with the firing of Shokin in March of 2016. It should be rather obvious that Ukraine could very still have bad actors in late 2016. The message was not sent, but that is hardly an impeachable offense.

Guy, here's the problem. Trump didn't go through the ICA or OMB or GAO to hold up funds. He did this whole secret channel diplomacy through Rudy the Bag Man to quietly pressure Zelensky to open a bogus investigation.

If everything Trump did was on the up and up, he should release ALL the documents and have EVERYONE testify.

It won't change much of anything, since the GOP has made it very clear they won't admit they made a mistake by letting him hijack their party. They just hope he gets voted out, dies of old age or term limits out so they won't have to face the wrath of his voters.

Right, process error. It wasn't a "bogus investigation". The Biden situation is worthy of investigation. We all know that.
 

Forum List

Back
Top