"If you’re innocent why are you taking the Fifth Amendment"? Donald Trump

[colfax_m]

Obviously an official action was done in exchange for those millions paid to Hunter.
Which was the billions illegally given to the Ukraine.
Since the Ukraine had been found guilty of stealing Russian gas and oil, it was illegal for the US to supply them with weapons to prevent collection of this judgement.
And NO, the DOJ is NOT how diplomacy is conducted, or how one gets another country to conduct an investigation for the US.
The DOJ would have no authority or ability to investigate anything about the Ukraine.
As much as I do not like Trump, he did this correctly, legally, and with full public disclosure.
Which shows the impeachment was totally and completely illegal.

No, the billions given to Ukraine were not done because of Hunter Biden's seat on the board of Burisma. That's an idiotic assertion.

You need to decide whether you're accusing Biden of breaking Ukranian law or US law. Because earlier you said he broke US law and that most certainly would be the realm of the DoJ. Obviously.

Trump did not do anyting legally, correctly and with full public disclosure.

 

[Rigby5]

Ironically you just proved that the was no quid-pro JOE.

Wrong.
The quid pro quo was that if Joe helped the Ukraine get US foreign aid, that then Hunter would get millions in kickbacks.
Both were illegal.
The Ukraine had been found guilty of stealing Russian gas and oil, so Russia has the legal right to invade the Ukraine to get payment of the amount ruled.

 

[meaner gene]

GOP controlled the House in 2020? Link please. Let's see what happens in 2023 once the laptop is thoroughly vetted.

You know there's a 5 year federal statute of limitations. What are you going to say when the feds don't want to investigate dead cases.
Of course you could blame the delay on Trump.

 

[Rigby5]

Except it's been past the statute of limitations, and you haven't proven any crime occurred.

The crime is obvious, and the statute of limitations only effects the imposition of sentences, not investigation.
Even if you can't imprison a crook, you can prevent them from being elected to office.

 

[colfax_m]

Yep and that came after a full investigation. This has not happened yet with Hunter/Joe/Ukraine/China/Paintings to my satisfaction.

Selling a painting now needs an investigation.

Okay.

 

[Rigby5]

Because that's what Obama told him to do, and the EU and IMF pushed for it. In fact the IMF threatened to withhold the $4 billion, unless the prosecutor was fired.

Biden had to be aware that as a civil servant, Shokin was protected from being fired unless found guilty of a crime.
So Biden was deliberately committing a criminal act by linking US aid to an illegal firing.
If you can fire prosecutors to prevent an investigation, then you have made the whole government completely corrupt.

 

[Rigby5]

Selling a painting now needs an investigation.

Okay.

Selling an obviously BAD painting for lots of money, should ALWAYS be investigated.

 

[meaner gene]

Wrong.
The quid pro quo was that if Joe helped the Ukraine get US foreign aid, that then Hunter would get millions in kickbacks.
Both were illegal.

Ironically there was a forum about how Obama didn't give aid to Ukraine. That he gave them blankets and MRE's instead of weapons.

So it's clear Joe didn't do anything to get additional foreign aid to Ukraine. Hence your very premise is unsubstantiated.

 

[colfax_m]

Selling an obviously BAD painting for lots of money, should ALWAYS be investigated.

Fascinating. So what is the legal definition of a bad painting?

 

[pknopp]

Ironically there was a forum about how Obama didn't give aid to Ukraine. That he gave them blankets and MRE's instead of weapons.

So it's clear Joe didn't do anything to get additional foreign aid to Ukraine. Hence your very premise is unsubstantiated.

My opinion here. We have no real clue who all we give what to.

 

[Rigby5]

No, the billions given to Ukraine were not done because of Hunter Biden's seat on the board of Burisma. That's an idiotic assertion.

You need to decide whether you're accusing Biden of breaking Ukranian law or US law. Because earlier you said he broke US law and that most certainly would be the realm of the DoJ. Obviously.

Trump did not do anyting legally, correctly and with full public disclosure.

I clearly showed you the US LAW that Joe and Hunter violated, and clearly the US could not possibly prosecute without an investigation BY the Ukraine.
The DOJ can NOT implement an investigation outside the US.
Get the point?
The Ukraine has to investigate, and then the US prosecutes?
Its called jurisdiction.
The DOJ has no authority to investigate outside the US.

 

[Rigby5]

Fascinating. So what is the legal definition of a bad painting?

Here is the definition of "bad" paintings.

 

[colfax_m]

I clearly showed you the US LAW that Joe and Hunter violated, and clearly the US could not possibly prosecute without an investigation BY the Ukraine.
The DOJ can NOT implement an investigation outside the US.
Get the point?
The Ukraine has to investigate, and then the US prosecutes?
Its called jurisdiction.
The DOJ has no authority to investigate outside the US.

You cited tax law which indicates exactly how clumsy you are with facts.

The DoJ can implement an investigation in the US and request specific points of assistance from their counter parts in Ukraine. That never happened.

 

[colfax_m]

Here is the definition of "bad" paintings.

I asked for the legal definition of bad paintings.

It doesn't exist.

The law does not determine the value of art. It can't. That would be absurd.

 

[Nostra]

So why did Biden insist that the Ukraine fire the prosecutor investigating Burisma? Local prosecutor investigating a local company?

Hmmmm

Nostra What are your thoughts on this?

We all know why. The Crackhead and The Big Guy were getting rich and The Big Guy didn't want that gravy train to end.

Hence, the extortion plot he hatched.

 

[Rigby5]

Ironically there was a forum about how Obama didn't give aid to Ukraine. That he gave them blankets and MRE's instead of weapons.

So it's clear Joe didn't do anything to get additional foreign aid to Ukraine. Hence your very premise is unsubstantiated.

Wrong.
Obama gave the Ukraine cash, as well as Stinger missiles.
Whomever said otherwise, is just wrong.
And again, the World Court had ruled the Ukraine owed Russia billions for stolen oil and gas, so it was illegal for the US to give the Ukraine aid to prevent Russia from collecting a legal debt.

 

[meaner gene]

The crime is obvious, and the statute of limitations only effects the imposition of sentences, not investigation.
Even if you can't imprison a crook, you can prevent them from being elected to office.

All that they can do is to spread lies, which is what they're doing now. Once you go beyond the statute of limitations, no indictment can be sought.

Criminal Statutes of Limitations

The statute of limitations defines a time limit within which the prosecution must file criminal charges. Failure to do so can lead to dismissal of the charges.

www.criminaldefenselawyer.com

Statutes of limitations establish time limits for starting criminal proceedings. The rules reflect society's wish to proceed with prosecutions while memories are fresh and evidence and witnesses are still available.

If the applicable time limit expires before criminal proceedings begin, charges should not be filed

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Senate. Didn't you pay attention?

You're still talking about this laptop? The Republicans have had this laptop for over a year.

Yeah when the Democrats buried it. Let's see what happens in 2023.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Because that's what Obama told him to do, and the EU and IMF pushed for it. In fact the IMF threatened to withhold the $4 billion, unless the prosecutor was fired.

Obama told him to do that? Link...thanks

So then we may interfere when it suits our interests, eh?

 

[Rigby5]

I asked for the legal definition of bad paintings.

It doesn't exist.

The law does not determine the value of art. It can't. That would be absurd.

Yes the law does have a legal definition of what is good or bad art.
All you need to do is hire some qualified art evaluators.
Their estimate is legal.

But we do not have to.
Anyone looking at these paintings can tell they are not art or remotely valuable.
They could be sold for a few hundred due to their color, but not as art.