The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[Olde Europe]

Oh wait...is that me "smearing" Hunter Biden? LOL

Yeah, a Yale Law School graduate with corporate experience, which you couldn't achieve, pulling down money you wouldn't earn. All dutifully reinforced by that drooling giggle at the end.

Aren't you proud of yourself?

 

[Oldstyle]

If Hunter Biden testifies then Joe Biden is toast as far as Presidential aspirations go. There's little question that although the Burisma board position isn't illegal...it's as sleazy as it gets and I think the Biden's knew that only too well! It's why Hunter gave up that cushy job. He knows damn well that it was influence peddling at it's worst. He knows damn well that if a spotlight is shown on how he was cashing in on his father's position in both the Ukraine and in China that the American public would be disgusted by what they'd done.

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

its funny and interesting to me that you can be so confident in something you know very very little about. You don’t know what Biden was hired to do, you don’t know what he did, you don’t know how he did it, yet you presume to know it all based on what I can only assume are conspiracy media reports.

I base all of that on reporting done by Reuters...the New York Times...Politifact...and the Wall Street Journal, Slade. Did you want to call any of them "conspiracy media"?

It's rather obvious what Hunter Biden DID for Burisma! He got paid a lot of money for them to use his name.
Firm Hired by Ukraine’s Burisma Tried to Use Hunter Biden as Leverage, Documents Show

 

[Slade3200]

Remember that this was the period of time when Hunter Biden was getting kicked out of his house by his ex-wife because of his alcoholism and drug addiction...when he was sleeping with his dead brother's widow while cheating on her with a stripper that he impregnated! Claiming THAT guy was a valuable "asset" to any company is laughable! Hunter Biden was a hot mess...which is why Joe Biden probably let him take the Burisma job. Quite frankly, Hunter needed the cash!

you make it painfully obvious that your intent is simply character assassination. You say there wasn’t a crime but it’s sleazy, you then rail against Biden. But no no, this has nothing to do with political dirt during an election!!! Ok got it

 

[Oldstyle]

Oh wait...is that me "smearing" Hunter Biden? LOL

Yeah, a Yale Law School graduate with corporate experience, which you couldn't achieve, pulling down money you wouldn't earn. All dutifully reinforced by that drooling giggle at the end.

Aren't you proud of yourself?

A Yale Law School graduate who's made a career of trading off his family name! From his very first job right out of college for one of his father's largest political contributors to his board job for Amtrak to the Burisma and China board jobs, Hunter Biden is a joke. Experience? He's an addict. He can't hold down a real job because he's a mess so his dad gets him things like the Burisma board job to pay the bills. It's what the powerful do for their idiot offspring!

 

[Oldstyle]

Remember that this was the period of time when Hunter Biden was getting kicked out of his house by his ex-wife because of his alcoholism and drug addiction...when he was sleeping with his dead brother's widow while cheating on her with a stripper that he impregnated! Claiming THAT guy was a valuable "asset" to any company is laughable! Hunter Biden was a hot mess...which is why Joe Biden probably let him take the Burisma job. Quite frankly, Hunter needed the cash!

you make it painfully obvious that your intent is simply character assassination. You say there wasn’t a crime but it’s sleazy, you then rail against Biden. But no no, this has nothing to do with political dirt during an election!!! Ok got it

It has EVERYTHING to do with political dirt! When did I ever claim it didn't? It's sleazy. People grasp that it's sleazy and it reflects badly on Joe Biden because he was warned by the State Department ethics people that it looked awful but he didn't stop it. It is what it is! Pretending that Hunter Biden got hired for that job because he was such a great asset to Burisma with his knowledge of the Ukraine or the natural gas industry makes you look foolish!

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

 

[Oldstyle]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Whether you're being "fair" doesn't seem relevant to you? Really? Interesting thing to admit, Slade...

 

[Slade3200]

You’d have to admit that anything lucrative Hunter did during the time his father served could be politicize and characterized like you just laid out. Right?

Not at all. I'm simply experienced enough with how the world works that when I look at someone pulling down $50,000 a month for a no show job that they wouldn't understand a thing about if they DID show...it sets off the old "corruption alarm"! This isn't some new concept...it's been going on for as long as people have had government. You got someone with power? You need a favor from that person? You can risk giving them an outright bribe but that's jail time if you get caught. Giving their campaign a boat load of money is another option but they have rules now about how much you can give. Giving their kids a no show job that pays big bucks is the perfect solution. It's not against the law and most powerful people have a few kids kicking around that are useless pieces of shit that NEED that kind of a position!

I know that kind of corruption is going to happen, Slade. It's how the world works. What concerns me is to what extent the politician who has been in effect "bought off" returns the favor for what's been done for their off-spring! It's a question I'd be asking a lot if I were in a position like the Presidency. If I'm in charge of an organization I want to know that people aren't selling us out for a payoff. If they are...I'm going to expose what they're doing and make sure they're not in a position to do that anymore.

I’m gonna stop at your first sentence and ask how it is you know it was a no show job and how do you know what he did and whether he was qualified or not? Where are you getting that from? Did Hannity tell you that?

Where am I getting what from? That Hunter Biden knows nothing about the Ukraine and nothing about the natural gas industry? He has ZERO experience with either and yet HE was chosen...an American lawyer who was kicked out of the Navy for drug abuse...over what one can only assume are thousands of more qualified people with knowledge of the Ukraine and of the natural gas industry? Does it really take someone else "telling" you that it's a no show job? Here's a hint...in the five years that Biden was on that board he never visited the Ukraine once for a Burisma board meeting. Not once! It's the very definition of a no show job!

its funny and interesting to me that you can be so confident in something you know very very little about. You don’t know what Biden was hired to do, you don’t know what he did, you don’t know how he did it, yet you presume to know it all based on what I can only assume are conspiracy media reports.

I base all of that on reporting done by Reuters...the New York Times...Politifact...and the Wall Street Journal, Slade. Did you want to call any of them "conspiracy media"?

It's rather obvious what Hunter Biden DID for Burisma! He got paid a lot of money for them to use his name.
Firm Hired by Ukraine’s Burisma Tried to Use Hunter Biden as Leverage, Documents Show

To save a ton of time and wasted breath I’m actually fine agreeing with your statement. Let’s say he was hired for his name and nothing more. It was a PR and branding move. “Hey instead of paying 2 million for that super bowl commercial let’s pay Biden 50k a month and liter his name all over our brochures” No crime there... I know you would have turned that down but really... what the hell are we even talking about here?!?! You can’t even accuse him of a crime

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Whether you're being "fair" doesn't seem relevant to you? Really? Interesting thing to admit, Slade...

When every reply turns into a hypocrisy debate then it is a distraction from the topic that’s being debated. I’m not a judge and I’m not running for office, my personal feelings don’t matter. I’m presenting arguments. Let’s stick to those arguments an not worry about my feelings

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

The substance?

7th time. Proof Trump did this for political gain.

Fine. We will play this way. Like I keep saying, use what ever rules you want, just be consistent.

 

[Slade3200]

Remember that this was the period of time when Hunter Biden was getting kicked out of his house by his ex-wife because of his alcoholism and drug addiction...when he was sleeping with his dead brother's widow while cheating on her with a stripper that he impregnated! Claiming THAT guy was a valuable "asset" to any company is laughable! Hunter Biden was a hot mess...which is why Joe Biden probably let him take the Burisma job. Quite frankly, Hunter needed the cash!

you make it painfully obvious that your intent is simply character assassination. You say there wasn’t a crime but it’s sleazy, you then rail against Biden. But no no, this has nothing to do with political dirt during an election!!! Ok got it

It has EVERYTHING to do with political dirt! When did I ever claim it didn't? It's sleazy. People grasp that it's sleazy and it reflects badly on Joe Biden because he was warned by the State Department ethics people that it looked awful but he didn't stop it. It is what it is! Pretending that Hunter Biden got hired for that job because he was such a great asset to Burisma with his knowledge of the Ukraine or the natural gas industry makes you look foolish!

Great then we are in agreement. If it has EVERYTHING to do with political dirt and exposing a sleazy narrative about the former VPs kid then that is a campaign matter and not something that should be pursued using the office of the president... not something that should impact our foreign policy. Agreed?

 

[iceberg]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

Do you at least admit that if the Biden's personal lawyer was convicted of a felony in which that lawyer named Biden an unindicted co-conspirator -- that would give much needed credibility to any Biden corruption allegations, correct??

Not playing fantasy island, tattoo.

 

[FA_Q2]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

If only the democrats are so lucky.

Trump supporters are going to go all the way with him - whatever comes out of the trial those supporters will explain it away. I do not see those in the center treating any Bidens as witnesses called in good faith. For that reason I do not see the republicans actually calling them - I do not see where they would gain from it. It is not as though anything that comes to light in testimony will be more damning than the open and unquestioned dirt the right is constantly slinging at them. Hunter is more useful as a blank wall.

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

The substance?

7th time. Proof Trump did this for political gain.

Fine. We will play this way. Like I keep saying, use what ever rules you want, just be consistent.

Ice, youve asked several times and Ive answered several times. Im not avoiding an answer. I don’t know what else to say. Not trying to be a dick here. If you don’t like my reasoning that’s fine. Agree to disagree.

 

[Slade3200]

Dems do realize that witnesses mean BOTH parties are calling witnesses right? Something like, Bolton for Biden, Mik for Whistleblower, etc.

I hear pundits saying that Biden won’t get called because he isn’t relevant to the charges but that argument makes no sense to me as he is at the heart of the accusations. Showing Hunter as corrupt disproves the accusations that Trumps “favor” was politically motivated... it’s Trumps only significant argument!

can somebody make the case for me why they don’t think Hunter would get called?

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

If only the democrats are so lucky.

Trump supporters are going to go all the way with him - whatever comes out of the trial those supporters will explain it away. I do not see those in the center treating any Bidens as witnesses called in good faith. For that reason I do not see the republicans actually calling them - I do not see where they would gain from it. It is not as though anything that comes to light in testimony will be more damning than the open and unquestioned dirt the right is constantly slinging at them. Hunter is more useful as a blank wall.

You May be right... but many will take any opportunity to shift the spotlight and focus away from trump and onto Biden. Get a few news cycles out of it. Doesn’t matter what they are saying as long as they are talking about it...

 

[iceberg]

Neither Joe nor Hunter Biden have anything to do with this situation. If either were called as a witness, what would he be questioned on? There is no "there" there. Either trump asked a foreign nation for dirt on his political rival in exchange for taxpayer aid to this nation to assist this nation in fighting off the Russians or not. Neither Biden has anything to do with it.

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

 

[Slade3200]

of course Biden has something to do with it... he is the political rival Trump is asking for dirt about. And Trumps case is that he wasn’t asking for dirt he was rooting out corruption. The Reps will turn the focus on Biden being corrupt. You really don’t see that?

Again you assume it's a dirt case but I'm still waiting for proof, not assumptions. The same phrase also fits the looking for crimes narrative just as well. You give that zero leeway and the Biden's every leeway. It's my long running issue with your stances. Your assumption of guilt on others, but you defend you side from similar assumptions as... Assumptions.

The situations are totally different but you want them treated the same. Trump is accusing and attacking the family of his political opponent so the burden of proof and the responsibility to execute the powers of his office in the appropriate way are very real. He is being accused of abusing that. Hunter Biden was a citizen doing a job and you are asking for proof of his innocence against Trumps accusations. It doesn’t. Really work that way.

A case has been made against Trump for abusing his power. I don’t think the case has concrete evidence which is why I’ve started several threads speaking out AGAINST impeachment. But I’m allowed to express my opinion on how it all adds up in my mind just as your allowed to do the same.

I am much more interested in debating the substance here than whether I’m being fair or not. If you agree or disagree with a point I make then drill down and debate all sides. But whether it’s fair or whether I’m doing the same for trump doesn’t seem relevant to me.

Has nothing to do with the situations.

But how you choose to handle then. In a nutshell, you allow speculation to be real against those you hate or don't like. You won't allow it to your "side".

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

6th time I've asked. You either have It or you don't. It either exists, or it doesn't. If it doesn't exist, you just "believe it", how is that binding or actionable FOR ANYONE?

This is where I usually have to walk away because you never seem to understand that critical point.

I don’t know what more proof you need other than the transcript. I don't even think Trump supporters are denying that Trump wanted political dirt at this point. It is painfully obvious. Scroll up a few posts where Oldstyle literally just said that its all about political dirt... I’m actually kind of surprised that you’re choosing this as a point of contention

And I'm surprised you can't point out the facts but continue on with supposition.

And once again please don't mix my conversations in with others.

8 times asked to point out 1 simple fact.

8 times it was not done. Look in the testimony isn't it. Link me to said testimony and person giving it. I want 5o be sure we are talking about the same "facts"

Ergo, I am done. There is no factual proof it was for political dirt.

I could lay out a dozen things that I see as obvious but that you would call supposition. I have laid many of them out and that’s how you’ve responded.

I hear most trump supporters like Oldstyle here admit that it’s about dirt but if you don’t think so then what do you think Trump was doing by going after Biden? Based on everything you’ve seen what do you think went down?

 

[Olde Europe]

Proof?

Give me the factual testimony that shows Trump WAS IN FACT DIGGING FOR ELECTION BASED DIRT.

You know, dummy, read the memorandum of the Zelensky call.

Part one: If you sat across a public official, wanting something from him, and he told you "I want you to do me a favor", you'd know immediately you've been extorted.

Part two: The favors he asked for were two investigations into wild-eyed conspiracy theories. These kinds of investigations regularly yield nothing of any worth.

Part three: He didn't just want the investigations. As his henchmen transmitted to the Ukrainians, it had to be Zelensky himself, and he had to announce the investigations publicly. Look for "Trump wants Zelensky in a box" in the transcripts of the House hearings.

With that the argument is complete. Trump extorted Zelensky for political dirt, a public smearing as a criminal. If you don't understand it, that's on you. You don't get to tell others to inform you when you otherwise carefully avoided digesting the information available to us all, equally.