Just reply to what you want because it is indeed getting way to long.
I think trying to go around to will of the voters and try to get the vice-president to stop or at least delay the certification is serious. This was the stated goal, and by itself is impeachable. Again, the whole point of Democracy is that the people choose the president. You would have absolutely no problem recognizing that if Biden would claim in 2024 without providing evidence that the election was stolen and therefor Harris would have the right to unilaterally decide to invalidate the votes.
That is not "shotgun justice" simply... justice.
Yes, it was dormant, as in not active. You also skipped a few things in your link.
Around that time, Burisma’s founder, a former government official named Mykola Zlochevsky, was under investigation for alleged money laundering by Britain’s Serious Fraud Office.
One of the reasons Britain was pissed at Shokin was this.
But when parliament lifted the immunity of Serhiy Klyuyev, a lawmaker and former close associate of Yanukovych who was charged with corruption, the General Prosecutor’s office stalled on issuing an arrest warrant, giving Klyuyev time to slip out of the country. Shokin also hindered the investigation of two men known as the “diamond prosecutors,” high-ranking state prosecutors who were arrested on suspicion of corruption; raids on their homes turned up a Kalashnikov, four hundred thousand dollars, and sixty-five diamonds. Even more discouraging, not a single person suspected of killing protesters on Maidan was brought to trial.
Reforming Ukraine After the Revolutions
Two muckraking journalists had contempt for Ukraine’s corrupt political system. So they became politicians.www.newyorker.com
also from your link.
Bloomberg quotes Ukraine’s current top prosecutor as saying he had no evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or his father.
Who says? Just because only one instance is widely reported that doesn't mean it was the only instance.
NO HE DID NOT, the proper channels for approving loans to friendly countries are whatever means the administration chooses to communicate its desires.
In the case of Trump though this isn't the case. He was, according to you, trying to combat corruption by a US citizen in Ukraine by getting that country to start a criminal investigation into a US citizen. This requires the showing of due process if you want to US courts the honor an extradition. In this case you have a direct request from a US president to another Head of State. Coordinated exclusively through someone who has NO government function. Bypassing all legal process. There is not a judge in the US who would honor such a request and it's likely that making it would have led to criminal or professional charges to at least Guiliani.
Let's apply Occam's razor.
You believe that a CEO of a company hired the son of the US vice-president and convinced him to get a prosecutor fired, who had stopped investigating that CEO. This son then convinced his dad to risk a huge scandal in order to help this CEO. This father then convinced the President of the United States to risk a huge scandal in order to help the CEO in Ukraine. The President of the United States then convinced the EU and some of the most important NGOs in the world to concoct a justification. for this ask. EU hails sacking of Ukraineâs prosecutor Viktor Shokin
I believe Shokin was corrupt. Was holding up investigations and was fired because people both in Ukraine and international law enforcement had a problem with that.
Proof in a legal sense is simply what someone brings forward to support what is claimed. This to establish the legal requirement for establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean you have to prove something to a point that any claim no matter how incredulous has to be accepted. I brought up the gangster and the store, but it works in any case where criminal intent plays a role.
Again, lets employ Occam's razor.
You believe Trump didn't specifically wanted Ukraine to investigate the son of his main political rival but was rather simply Trying to get Ukraine to investigate corruption. This despite that he fired the ambassedor to Ukraine for that purpose, this despite the fact that the DOJ didn't have probable cause, this despite the fact that he went through his own personal lawyer to do so. This despite that the way this investigation started would defeat any attempt to extradite if a crime would have been established. This despite the fact that the ONLY concerns of corruption that Trump mentioned was Hunter Biden and Crowdstrike an American Company that helped the DNC.
I believe he tried to blackmail Zelinski for his own personal political gain.
.
Page 2 point 7
Yes page 2 point 7
Link please
I blame him for lying about the election until the point that these people felt that attacking the Capitol was reasonable.
Link please
I'm saying that if you hold that rally and if you use that rethoric you carry the moral responsibility.
I'm suggesting that if people's morals cause them to plot to stay in power by trying to circumvent the choice of the voters they should be punished. Just like I want people punished who commit sexual assault and just like I want people to be punished if they steal and hide classified documents. It's weird that you don't.
You would vote for someone who both a judge and a jury said committed sexual assault? Who is accused of 78 felony counts?
Because at least he's not a Democrat? I personally think that's insane.
He did. He told the lie that caused it, and he asked them to come.
Hitler wasn't at the Wannsee conference. He's still the main person responsible for the Holocaust. Not saying Trump is Hitler, but I am saying that being the one that invents the ideology makes you responsible for what it causes.
Reports that no matter how non-sensical and how many times debunked you still assert to be valid.
He was proactive. His action was saying" serves you right" (paraphrasing here). I like these euphemisms you're using (badly).
That's kind of par for the course right? Trump is doing something non-sensical and something that's already proven to have the potential of turning violent. But "I don't know why he's doing it, so I won't give a moral judgement".
"He's either criminal or delusional. But I'll vote for him over any Democrat."
www.washingtontimes.com
I agree that going around the will of the voters is wrong. If he is found guilty of trying to go around the election, so be it. I’m talking about the riot at the capitol. People are trying to talk about his intent. As of yet, there’s no proof that he intended for all that to happen. We do know he called for peace, and yeah, he should have been quicker on the response, which I call him out for that, but to say he is responsible for the riot because of his words, im not sold on that. Many politicians use similar rhetoric.
By the way, do you support the national popular vote compact?
It is shotgun justice any time you try to punish someone without doing due diligence. Like I said, you can’t use what you know now to justify an impeachment then. The dems had little to go on other than he tried to get new slates of electors. Again I ask, do you support the national popular vote compact?
They completed an impeachment with no investigation, and only 2 hours of debate. That’s shotgun justice.
you have a point, I’ll give you that, but, still there are too many things surrounding this case that leads one to believe that there is no good going on in relation to all of this. First among my questions is, why would a Ukrainian gas company seek the services of hunter to be on their board? Apparently burisma thought they were getting something for his services, and that is access to Biden. Why is my question. Also, it’s suspicious because Ukraine is apparently has a lot of corruption, so don’t you think it’s suspicious that they would put the son of an American vice president in their board?
What due process is required? We’re not talking about a prosecution, it was just a request to have Zelenskyy look in to potential wrongdoing by a U.S. citizen in another country. The US isn’t going to conduct that investigation, it has to be done by the country where the alleged wrongdoing took place.
I wasn’t aware that a u.s. citizen was afforded due process rights for just an investigation. I thought due process rights applied to a trial…
Strange though, isn’t it? How you are quite interested in the due process rights of Biden, but not of trump being impeached with no investigation. Yeah yeah, it’s not a criminal trial. I’m just pointing out that you don’t care that trump didn’t get the benefit of an investigation before they impeached him and tried to remove him. Where was his due process rights?
It means that there can be no other explanation from the evidence presented.
beyond a reasonable doubt
www.law.cornell.edu
Ok, let’s apply Occam’s razor. Hunter Biden mysteriously get placed on the board of a gas company in Ukraine, a country known to have corruption in the government, Biden then shows up on tv and says “well son of a *****, he got fired”, then we learned shokin was investigating the company that hunter had been put on the board of. No explanation as to why they wanted hunter, can only assume it was for access to Biden. Now we find out that they had a low opinion of hunter. “My dog is smarter than him”.
Then they admit they wanted hunter there for certain “protections”, and ended up having to pay 5 million to bother hunter and joe.
If hunter being on the board of burisma is on the up and up, why all of the hoopla?
I’m not debating he was upset about the leak of the roe decision (which is odd that they never found the leaker, is it? They didn’t want to find the leaker). I’m saying, how do you know that schumers rhetoric wasn’t the thing that sent him over the edge and caused him to attempt to get to kavanaugh?
Makes about as much sense as trump telling people to peacefully protest, and then blaming him when they get out of hand (which there are rumors that those people were agitated by the police and fbi in the crowd).
For his actions regarding trying to alter the election, if the evidence proves that trump indeed broke legal statutes, then he should be held accountable. I’m speaking to the riot specifically.
Also, Biden hid classified documents…sure, when shit hit the fan, he strangely “found classified documents”…that’s very convenient. The fact that he held them for decades (how does a senator get classified documents out of the scif?) and only turns them over when people are starting to look at trump does not equal “willingly turning them over”. Sounds like he had no intention of turning them in until trump got in trouble for it, then they said “well we had better get our stuff in order before we get caught too”.
These two happened in the wake of the Floyd riots.
Admittedly the one about pelosi was not in relation to Floyd, but she is calling for uprisings in relation to the immigration issue…she’s calling for uprisings…which means what? Is she calling for protests or riots? “Uprisings” means revolt or rebellion. More “rhetoric”?
Nancy Pelosi wonders why there ‘aren’t uprisings’ across nation: ‘Maybe there will be’
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi told reporters on Thursday that she is confused why Americans aren’t “uprising” against the Trump administration over conditions on the border with Mexico.
And then Maxine waters calling for physical violence against members of trumps cabinet members:
And what happened? They did just that. They found where some of trumps cabinet member were and they went in and harassed them, and forced them to leave, some had to leave by the back door.
i don’t condone any sexual abuse, but from a political standpoint, yes, I’d vote for trump over Biden.
Remember, Biden has also been accused of sexual wrongs, the left just swept them under the rug.
You have to prove that trump intended to cause them to riot. As I’ve said before, rhetoric is used by all politicians, but you don’t care when a democrat does it. Still, you keep glossing over the fact that the only call to action trump made was to peacefully protest, with their voices.
If people in the crowd take his words and assign their own meaning to them, or worse yet, if provocateurs in the crowd egg them on, how do you associate that guilt to trump? Once again, one could just as easily associate any of the hateful rhetoric that the left has used over the last few years and associate it with all of the riots and uprising we’ve had, but you don’t do that do you? All of that is just pure coincidence.
Even when I agree with you on something, you still find a way to criticize it?
You can try to assign whatever horrendous title you want to me. Maybe he really does believe the election was stolen and doesn’t believe the people who told him it wasn’t. For every one that said it wasn’t, you’ll find one that says it was.
The truth is, if/when Biden is ever found guilty of crimes, tens of millions would still vote for him over trump any day of the week, so your assertion that I’m somehow a bad person because I would vote for trumps politics over bidens is kind of hypocritical.
No, you weren't. You were talking about having insufficient information to support an impeachment. I gave you the information that was available at the time simply going by the stated goal of the rally and Trump's actions. In effect the rally although horrendous wasn't Trump's impeachable offense. It was the ploy to do an end-around of the voters. That's Jack Smith's contention. And it was my contention. Way before Smith was even appointed by the way.
Sure. Where the problem lies is in the fact that it was the US that asked for the investigation. Mind you that's if I take your contention serious. For that you do need probable cause. If Ukraine by itself would have started to conduct an investigation it wouldn't have been a problem. In this case though it was the president personally that asked. He can't point to an underlying investigation. He can't point to following a process that is designed to protect a defendant.
I'm always interested in due process. This includes when Trump is under indictment. My point though is simply that by violating Biden's right of due process. Trump made extradition impossible. Defeating the whole point of conducting an actual investigation. Again, going by the premise that you propose.
I didn't claim it was or is on the up and up. I have no interest in defending Hunter Biden. I'm saying there's a much easier explanation for Hunter Biden being on this board. An explanation that doesn't require a massive conspiracy spanning multiple NGO's, countries and hundreds of people.
Sure Hunter. Joe there is no evidence of. Not my words but those of Comer.
Maybe because the person who did the accusing literally has defected to Russia? And Trump hasn't been merely accused. He has been found to have done it in a court of law.
No I don't. The only thing I need to prove is that Trump wanted to overturn the election. He did by among other things lying. One of the consequences of those lies was that a bunch of people figured it valid to attack the Capitol making him morally responsible.
I criticize the choice of using the term "not being proactive" when describing Trump's actions. He was proactive. He scolded the people who were being attacked as the cause. Not being proactive means you take no action. HE DID.
I'm sorry but you are again fighting against some hypothetical leftists. I would not support Biden if a jury of his peers found him guilty of crimes.
It's only hypocritical if you would be talking to someone who claims he would support Biden in similar circumstances. I'm perfectly willing to state I wouldn't. And no, I don't consider you a bad person. I'm perfectly capable of distinguishing political beliefs from a person. You can be a perfectly good person and have no morals when it comes to politics.
I’m not sure about that. Can you link to that assertion? If trump has the case moved to federal court it’s because the allegations against him were for things done while he was a federal employee. Therefore, the case would be moved to the federal level, and therefore it becomes a federal crime, and federal pardon rules apply. I mean, how could you try a state case in federal court
You weren't aware at the time that Trump was asking Pence to stop the certification of the election results after lost all court cases? I was. The fact that you don't think that's impeachable very much is a you problem. Trying to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is one of the gravest offences a president can make in my book.
That's the end goal of a legit investigation into corruption is it not? You can't both claim you think it's possible Trump wanted simply to investigate corruption while at the same time trying to somehow claim normal judicial procedure is unnecessary.
There is no due process in an impeachment. Impeachment is a political process not a judicial one. The process is basically whatever the legislative branch says it is. Apples and oranges.
Hunter Biden. If the whole idea was to investigate corruption as you were claiming.
BS. The name Biden carries value all by itself, granting legitimacy. You should be aware of that since most of the things that have the Trump name on it aren't owned by Trump simply his name.
That form is literally a standard form that the FBI uses when they receive a tip. Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can make accusations. You on the other hand stated the accusation as fact.
Oh really? It doesn't? You don't think it relevant that the person accusing Biden is choosing Russia over America?
Sure, you can. I hold Hitler responsible for the Holocaust. He might have called for " a final solution" but he can't use using a euphemism as a get out of jail free card. I can hold a person responsible for yelling fire in a movie theater if the ensuing panic hurts people. I can hold Trump responsible for an insurrection if the reason for that insurrection can be directly traced to him lying about the election and calling his supporters to pressure Mike Pence.
I support a constitutional amendment for completely getting rid of the electoral college. Since I find the whole system as unfair. I'd like nothing more than the person winning the most votes in the nation also winning the presidency. This however requires a constitutional amendment.
Sure it is. He instead made a proactive statement pushing the blame for the insurrection on Pence as he was being attacked.
Yet you had no compunction in calling MY ARGUMENT hypocritical.
