The tits and tats of witnesses, this includes Hunter

[colfax_m]

Show me the quote from the decision that declares there is one and only one exemption.

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

It's true for ALL legal documents! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That’s obviously not true. Have you ever heard of a “narrow ruling”?

 

[iceberg]

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

It's true for ALL legal documents! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That’s obviously not true. Have you ever heard of a “narrow ruling”?

Yea it's also called "only see what I tell you"

 

[colfax_m]

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

It's true for ALL legal documents! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That’s obviously not true. Have you ever heard of a “narrow ruling”?

Yea it's also called "only see what I tell you"

What does that have to do with anything being discussed here?

 

[busybee01]

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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

 

[Oldstyle]

If they only cite one exception, Colfax...that's the only exemption there is. These are lawyers...they use words because they mean something. The Supreme Court ruled that there is Executive Privilege under the Second Amendment of the Constitution except when the Courts rule that evidence in an ongoing criminal trial is being concealed by that privilege and in that circumstance the Court can rule that Executive Privilege does not apply.

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

It's true for ALL legal documents! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That’s obviously not true. Have you ever heard of a “narrow ruling”?

It's a choice by the Court to rule on a specific point of law as opposed to a "broad ruling". Are you claiming that US vs Nixon was a narrow ruling and thus doesn't apply here? It's the only Supreme Court ruling on Executive Privilege. If you want to challenge the ruling that Executive Privilege can be taken away from the Executive Branch but only if the Courts have requested evidence in an ongoing criminal trial...then feel free to do so through the courts. You on the left haven't done so however...you've declared that Congress has the power to subject the Executive Branch to subpoena's which they MUST obey or be guilty of "obstruction of justice" and THAT is a crock! In order for that to be true...you need to have the Supreme Court SAY IT IS SO!

 

[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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

 

[colfax_m]

No. That’s not how it works. If they cite one exception in the decision that’s because they are citing the exception that matters to that case. That does not mean there are no other exceptions.

Yes, actually it does. The very reason for the pages of fine print on legal documents is it be inclusive. Imagine a life insurance policy that states that it will pay on the event of your death with the exception of suicide. This means it will pay no matter what except in the case of suicide. There are no other exceptions that would be entertained in a court of law if they were not explicitly stated in the policy. This is of course why so many legal documents are so verbose.

That may be true for insurance policies, that’s not true for court decisions.

It's true for ALL legal documents! You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

That’s obviously not true. Have you ever heard of a “narrow ruling”?

It's a choice by the Court to rule on a specific point of law as opposed to a "broad ruling". Are you claiming that US vs Nixon was a narrow ruling and thus doesn't apply here? It's the only Supreme Court ruling on Executive Privilege. If you want to challenge the ruling that Executive Privilege can be taken away from the Executive Branch but only if the Courts have requested evidence in an ongoing criminal trial...then feel free to do so through the courts. You on the left haven't done so however...you've declared that Congress has the power to subject the Executive Branch to subpoena's which they MUST obey or be guilty of "obstruction of justice" and THAT is a crock! In order for that to be true...you need to have the Supreme Court SAY IT IS SO!

Yes. There are broad rulings and narrow rulings. The text of the rulings tells us which is which. The text of US v Nixon does not exclude other qualifiers or executive privilege as you seem to believe. Therefore, it is not a broad ruling. At least, it’s not broad in the way you say.

The power of impeachment is given to Congress in the constitution. They are exercising that power. Where is the executive privilege named in the constitution?

 

[Slade3200]

I’m presuming that because I haven’t heard of one. Also, if there was an investigation I’d presume that Trump and the republicans would have been pointing to it none stop to avoid the impeachment.
Do you really think that there is one?

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

Why are you presuming that if the DOJ announced that they were investigating Biden, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The reason why the Reps want to call Hunter to testify is because their defense for Trumps impeachment is to counter the accusation that Trump was acting for political purposes. They will therefore try and justify Trumps ask for the Ukraine to investigate by making Biden look as corrupt as possible. It can’t be “digging for political dirt” if there was actual corruption going on. Right?

If there was a DOJ investigation going on, Trump could have easily leaked that and then used it as a talking point against the impeachment investigation... maybe even avoided the impeachment all together.

that’s the differentiator between what Biden did and what trump did. Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired. Trump took actions outside of his own administrations foreign policy interests to leverage funds to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political opponent. Maybe if you understood the differences you would understand what’s actually going on here and why Trump is being impeached by the minority while Biden is free and clear and campaigning for president as we speak. Reality is not adding up with what your narrative is trying to say. Wake up.

You make several specious claims in your post. For instance, you presume that Trump would leak info about ongoing DOJ investigations, even though he constantly rails against that practice. Is that your TDS talking?

You also claim that "Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired."

That is a canard that I've often heard from you Biden corruption apologists. However, when asked for specifics, you can never cite even a single instance of PG Shokin engaging in any sort of corrupt activity whatsoever.

But Biden admittedly extorted Ukrainian officials to get Viktor Shokin fired (just weeks after the attempted assassination via sniper attack on Shokin. CIA??) and replaced by Yuri Lutsenko.

So you have no evidence that Shokin was corrupt. But everybody knew that Lutsenko was corrupt due to his criminal record.

Lutsenko was installed as a puppet Prosecutor General by the Obama administration, ostensibly to fight corruption, even though Lutsenko had served prison time for corruption, had never actually practiced law, and had never even got a law degree or ever attended law school.

How the **** do you explain that?

And Biden gets $millions out of the deal.

How do you explain that shit?

Can you explain why you think it is not suspicious enough to investigate?

Let’s not flood the zone with a dozen questions in one post. I’ll address the first two and we can go from there...

I have very little doubt that Trump would make a DOJ investigation into Biden public. He has released sensitive information to the public all the time and the excise is that the president has the power to declassify therefore it’s impossible for the president to leak.

As for the Biden situation. There is very clear evidence that Biden was acting in accordance with US foreign policy and that of our allies. I’ve posted links to a bipartisan letter from congress calling for reforms to The prosecutors office ( signed by Ron Johnson and others). There’s also the IMF who did the same thing as Biden by threatening to withhold funds, and its well known that the EU and Ukraine reform leaders wanted to get rid of this guy. You are either misinformed or you are lying. Do you challenge the validly of anything I just said?

 

[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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

You are calling it a phony investigation. Trump will say it isn’t phony there was legit corruption. He will want to use Hunter in his defense to show the corruption and legitimacy for asking for Ukraine to investigate.

 

[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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

 

[JoeB131]

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

Because Hunter didn't have any direct contact with Trump when Trump was breaking the law.

This isn't complicated, buddy. This impeachment is ONLY about what Trump did.

 

[task0778]

Ukraine started criminal proceedings against Lutsenko, and he has fled the country. And the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office announced it was auditing Lutsenko's handling of over a dozen cases against Burisma. So yes there in an ongoing investigation in Ukraine. The PGO also announced that the investigation regarding the attempted assassination of PG Shokin, is ongoing. And of course we know that Joe Biden had a motive to get rid of Shokin because shortly after the sniper attack Biden demanded that Shokin be replaced with Lutsenko. And did not OK the $1 billion loan guarantee until the day after Lutsenko was installed into the PGO.

As far as the DOJ, they generally do not speak about ongoing investigations until they hand out indictments.

But you can bet your ass that there's an ongoing DOJ investigation. The Dems certainly are convinced there is because they demanded that Barr recuse himself from any investigations regarding Ukraine.

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

Why are you presuming that if the DOJ announced that they were investigating Biden, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The reason why the Reps want to call Hunter to testify is because their defense for Trumps impeachment is to counter the accusation that Trump was acting for political purposes. They will therefore try and justify Trumps ask for the Ukraine to investigate by making Biden look as corrupt as possible. It can’t be “digging for political dirt” if there was actual corruption going on. Right?

If there was a DOJ investigation going on, Trump could have easily leaked that and then used it as a talking point against the impeachment investigation... maybe even avoided the impeachment all together.

that’s the differentiator between what Biden did and what trump did. Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired. Trump took actions outside of his own administrations foreign policy interests to leverage funds to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political opponent. Maybe if you understood the differences you would understand what’s actually going on here and why Trump is being impeached by the minority while Biden is free and clear and campaigning for president as we speak. Reality is not adding up with what your narrative is trying to say. Wake up.

You make several specious claims in your post. For instance, you presume that Trump would leak info about ongoing DOJ investigations, even though he constantly rails against that practice. Is that your TDS talking?

You also claim that "Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired."

That is a canard that I've often heard from you Biden corruption apologists. However, when asked for specifics, you can never cite even a single instance of PG Shokin engaging in any sort of corrupt activity whatsoever.

But Biden admittedly extorted Ukrainian officials to get Viktor Shokin fired (just weeks after the attempted assassination via sniper attack on Shokin. CIA??) and replaced by Yuri Lutsenko.

So you have no evidence that Shokin was corrupt. But everybody knew that Lutsenko was corrupt due to his criminal record.

Lutsenko was installed as a puppet Prosecutor General by the Obama administration, ostensibly to fight corruption, even though Lutsenko had served prison time for corruption, had never actually practiced law, and had never even got a law degree or ever attended law school.

How the **** do you explain that?

And Biden gets $millions out of the deal.

How do you explain that shit?

Can you explain why you think it is not suspicious enough to investigate?

Let’s not flood the zone with a dozen questions in one post. I’ll address the first two and we can go from there...

I have very little doubt that Trump would make a DOJ investigation into Biden public. He has released sensitive information to the public all the time and the excise is that the president has the power to declassify therefore it’s impossible for the president to leak.

As for the Biden situation. There is very clear evidence that Biden was acting in accordance with US foreign policy and that of our allies. I’ve posted links to a bipartisan letter from congress calling for reforms to The prosecutors office ( signed by Ron Johnson and others). There’s also the IMF who did the same thing as Biden by threatening to withhold funds, and its well known that the EU and Ukraine reform leaders wanted to get rid of this guy. You are either misinformed or you are lying. Do you challenge the validly of anything I just said?

You tell me: is it US foreign policy to use foreign aid as a bribe to force any foreign official to be removed? That's exactly what Biden did, and he even bragged about it. Who gives a **** whether any other country supported reforms to get rid of the guy, that ain't the way we're supposed to be doing business. The world knows that Ukraine is and has been a corrupt country, Obama and Biden and the EU certainly knew it. There are legal ways to influence foreign gov'ts to fight their own corruption, but giving them 6 hours to fire somebody who is investigating your son's company is not one of them. Trump has an excuse: it's his job to find out if Americans are involved in corrupt activities abroad, and to discover if anyone has abused the power of their office in the United States gov't. Biden has no such excuse.

 

[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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

And... care to explain that?

 

[Slade3200]

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

Because Hunter didn't have any direct contact with Trump when Trump was breaking the law.

This isn't complicated, buddy. This impeachment is ONLY about what Trump did.

I understand that but Trump is being accused of digging for political dirt. He says he was rooting out corruption. That is a point of contention that Hunter falls right in the middle of.

 

[Slade3200]

Haha. So Trump goes through all this trouble to try and get Ukraine to publicly announce an investigation into the DNC and Biden. That doesn’t happen, why not, there was video evidence right?? Furthermore, he also keeps his lips shit about our own DOJs investigation during a time when pointing to it could have helped him avoid impeachment... Loose lips Donny zips it about that of all things... do you honestly expect anybody to believe that?!

Why are you presuming that if the DOJ announced that they were investigating Biden, the Democrats wouldn't impeach Trump?

That's absolutely ridiculous.

The reason why the Reps want to call Hunter to testify is because their defense for Trumps impeachment is to counter the accusation that Trump was acting for political purposes. They will therefore try and justify Trumps ask for the Ukraine to investigate by making Biden look as corrupt as possible. It can’t be “digging for political dirt” if there was actual corruption going on. Right?

If there was a DOJ investigation going on, Trump could have easily leaked that and then used it as a talking point against the impeachment investigation... maybe even avoided the impeachment all together.

that’s the differentiator between what Biden did and what trump did. Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired. Trump took actions outside of his own administrations foreign policy interests to leverage funds to get Ukraine to announce an investigation of his political opponent. Maybe if you understood the differences you would understand what’s actually going on here and why Trump is being impeached by the minority while Biden is free and clear and campaigning for president as we speak. Reality is not adding up with what your narrative is trying to say. Wake up.

You make several specious claims in your post. For instance, you presume that Trump would leak info about ongoing DOJ investigations, even though he constantly rails against that practice. Is that your TDS talking?

You also claim that "Biden was actually acting on behalf of our countries foreign policy objectives to fight corruption in Ukraine which is why he pushed to get the prosecutor fired."

That is a canard that I've often heard from you Biden corruption apologists. However, when asked for specifics, you can never cite even a single instance of PG Shokin engaging in any sort of corrupt activity whatsoever.

But Biden admittedly extorted Ukrainian officials to get Viktor Shokin fired (just weeks after the attempted assassination via sniper attack on Shokin. CIA??) and replaced by Yuri Lutsenko.

So you have no evidence that Shokin was corrupt. But everybody knew that Lutsenko was corrupt due to his criminal record.

Lutsenko was installed as a puppet Prosecutor General by the Obama administration, ostensibly to fight corruption, even though Lutsenko had served prison time for corruption, had never actually practiced law, and had never even got a law degree or ever attended law school.

How the **** do you explain that?

And Biden gets $millions out of the deal.

How do you explain that shit?

Can you explain why you think it is not suspicious enough to investigate?

Let’s not flood the zone with a dozen questions in one post. I’ll address the first two and we can go from there...

I have very little doubt that Trump would make a DOJ investigation into Biden public. He has released sensitive information to the public all the time and the excise is that the president has the power to declassify therefore it’s impossible for the president to leak.

As for the Biden situation. There is very clear evidence that Biden was acting in accordance with US foreign policy and that of our allies. I’ve posted links to a bipartisan letter from congress calling for reforms to The prosecutors office ( signed by Ron Johnson and others). There’s also the IMF who did the same thing as Biden by threatening to withhold funds, and its well known that the EU and Ukraine reform leaders wanted to get rid of this guy. You are either misinformed or you are lying. Do you challenge the validly of anything I just said?

You tell me: is it US foreign policy to use foreign aid as a bribe to force any foreign official to be removed? That's exactly what Biden did, and he even bragged about it. Who gives a **** whether any other country supported reforms to get rid of the guy, that ain't the way we're supposed to be doing business. The world knows that Ukraine is and has been a corrupt country, Obama and Biden and the EU certainly knew it. There are legal ways to influence foreign gov'ts to fight their own corruption, but giving them 6 hours to fire somebody who is investigating your son's company is not one of them. Trump has an excuse: it's his job to find out if Americans are involved in corrupt activities abroad, and to discover if anyone has abused the power of their office in the United States gov't. Biden has no such excuse.

yes, that was the policy of the US... push for reforms to the prosecutors office. Biden doing that was executing the objectives of our country and others. If you think the bribe part was an illegal use of his power then go ahead and make that case but I dont see any charges being pressed by Trumps DOJ despite there being a video confession of what he did. That tells me that Trumps DOJ does not consider that a crime. So why do you?

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

And... care to explain that?

twisting the facts to match your narrative is lying,,,

 

[Slade3200]

Because Hunter Biden knows nothing about Trump's efforts to pressure Ukraine to open a phony investigation. Hunter Biden broke no laws. Trump provided no evidence to open a investigation. The witnesses should be relevant.

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

And... care to explain that?

twisting the facts to match your narrative is lying,,,

how am I twisting facts?

also, can we stop with the games that take dozens of questions and vague answers to get the point out of you?. If you want to make a Point then make the point and explain yourself. My patience is thin with your tactics. Time to talk like grown ups.

 

[progressive hunter]

Interesting...so it's OK to open an investigation into Carter Page...who broke no laws...but not to open one into Hunter Biden? What is your rationale for that, Bee? I continue to be amused by the Left's double standard when it comes to what's allowable NOW compared to what was commonplace three years ago!

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

And... care to explain that?

twisting the facts to match your narrative is lying,,,

how am I twisting facts?

also, can we stop with the games that take dozens of questions and vague answers to get the point out of you?. If you want to make a Point then make the point and explain yourself. My patience is thin with your tactics. Time to talk like grown ups.

if it wasnt for the fact we have gone over your deceptions and twisted facts many times I would agree with you,,,

 

[Slade3200]

If Trump would have opened an investigation into Biden using the FBI and DOJ am with the same process that was used with page then yes it would be legit. If Obama went to a foreign leader and leveraged US funds to get them to announce an investigation into Carter page then there would be issues.

but thats not what happened,,,stop lying,,,

And... care to explain that?

twisting the facts to match your narrative is lying,,,

how am I twisting facts?

also, can we stop with the games that take dozens of questions and vague answers to get the point out of you?. If you want to make a Point then make the point and explain yourself. My patience is thin with your tactics. Time to talk like grown ups.

if it wasnt for the fact we have gone over your deceptions and twisted facts many times I would agree with you,,,

And another vague response. I’m done with you for the day. Thanks for playing. Try again once you’ve grown up