Turley Explains Why An Impeachment Inquiry is Warranted

[Marener]

Yeah, there is a potential for multiple charges, which is very common. If Biden conspired with his son to influence policy in the US in exchange for money, that is a crime. I'll let them figure out how to classify it. That is what is being investigated and rightly so given the wealth of information already available. During the course of the investigation, other unforeseen crimes may very well be uncovered.

You didn’t really address the point I raised.

On one hand you claim this is all potential crimes being investigated. On the other hand you claim that it’s enough to warrant prosecution and conviction.

It can’t be both.

 

[Marener]

What crime would that be? A Quid Pro Quo? If that is the case, how exactly was Biden's demand for Shokin to be fired not be a Quid Pro Quo? Clearly, Joe demanded that the Ukraine take a particular action (firing Shokin) in order to get US funding. Whether his son that just happened to be on the board of the company in question...well. You guys aren't too bright.

Because a quid pro quo isn’t corrupt unless it’s done for personal benefit.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to someone as “well informed” as you.

 

[SweetTea]

Or we can conclude from those sources who point out how Shokin was actually doing his job instead of parroting a dishonest leftist partisan press that says he was corrupt without giving any explanation for how he was corrupt.

Considering the fact that Joe's son was hired by the company being investigated, this is the most plausible reason.

Democrats are completely blinded to the facts and common sense by hate.

 

[Nostra]

Because a quid pro quo isn’t corrupt unless it’s done for personal benefit.

I shouldn’t have to explain this to someone as “well informed” as you.

Lies. If it benefits his family it qualifies, Simp.

 

[Marener]

Or we can conclude from those sources who point out how Shokin was actually doing his job instead of parroting a dishonest leftist partisan press that says he was corrupt without giving any explanation for how he was corrupt.

The State Dept diplomats involved in the decision to push for his removal already did a fine none explaining how he was corrupt. Many new outlets discussed it.

The inside story of Ukraine’s ‘very good’ prosecutor at the centre of Trump's latest scandal

Donald Trump said Ukraine’s former chief prosecutor was an honest, wronged man, fired after Joe Biden tried to shut down an investigation into his son’s gas company. In Kiev, Oliver Carroll speaks to people who know Viktor Shokin, and finds a different story

www.independent.co.uk

Who are the sources saying he was “doing his job”?

 

[Marener]

Considering the fact that Joe's son was hired by the company being investigated, this is the most plausible reason.

Democrats are completely blinded to the facts and common sense by hate.

What you think is “plausible” is hardly a fact. Your common sense isn’t common or sense when it’s being driven by partisanship.

Hunter Biden was hired before Shokin was, need we remind you of that “fact”? Or maybe you aren’t an expert on the timeline like the Republicans supposedly investigating Biden.

 

[Rawley]

Are you pretending as if these answers convey any significant information?

The reason you are being evasive is that if you say anything specific, it can be disproven. Can’t have that.

What's to disprove? You asked what crime. I gave it to you. Third and last time, the crime is Abuse of Power.

 

[Marener]

What's to disprove? You asked what crime. I gave it to you. Third and last time, the crime is Abuse of Power.

If it came by disproven, then it is meaningless.

Thanks for proving my point. This is not a serious issue.

 

[SweetTea]

You didn’t really address the point I raised.

On one hand you claim this is all potential crimes being investigated. On the other hand you claim that it’s enough to warrant prosecution and conviction.

It can’t be both.

I said several times that it warrants a serious inquiry. Evidently you and other Democrats disagree. I'm not sure how much evidence should be required in the minds of Democrats to warrant an investigation/inquiry. It sure seems like you guys believe that no investigations or inquiries are warranted unless the available evidence unequivocally implicates Joe. That is not how it works. By definition, an investigation is a detailed inquiry. How would any investigator find evidence against a suspect without investigating or inquiring? Are you implying that Joe shouldn't even be a suspect? If so, just wow.

 

[Rawley]

That would imply they actually say what they are.

Which is not something you are willing to do.

Because they haven't yet drafted Articles of impeachment. First comes the inquiry to gather evidence, then comes Articles of Impeachment. Third, and last time, why are you feigning complete ignorance of the process?

 

[SweetTea]

If it came by disproven, then it is meaningless.

Thanks for proving my point. This is not a serious issue.

Good Lord, this is the exact point of the inquiry. I guess you really don't understand how investigations work.

 

[SweetTea]

Because they have yet drafted Articles of impeachment. First comes the inquiry to gather evidence, then comes Articles of Impeachment. Third, and last time, why are you feigning complete ignorance of the process?

Yep, that is exactly what he is doing. He knows the process, just doesn't like it in this case.

 

[Marener]

I said several times that it warrants a serious inquiry.

You’ve also stated that he should be on trial for the evidence already uncovered meaning you think you have sufficient evidence to prove “something” beyond a reasonable doubt.

Anyone else would already be on trial for the evidence already uncovered.

My point here is they your narrative has already been set. The inquiry is meaningless.

 

[Rawley]

If it came by disproven, then it is meaningless.

Thanks for proving my point. This is not a serious issue.

And you are not a serious poster. You are arguing like a toddler, going round and round. Personally, I've had enough of indulging you.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Foxfyre]

Considering the fact that Joe's son was hired by the company being investigated, this is the most plausible reason.

Democrats are completely blinded to the facts and common sense by hate.

For a long time the leftist have tried to make us believe that Shokin was not investigating Burisma. They still parrot that now even though the evidence and Shokin himself indicate that he absolutely was investigating Burisma. Is that PROOF of why Joe demanded he be fired? Not by itself alone. But it sure doesn't meet the smell test.

 

[Marener]

Good Lord, this is the exact point of the inquiry. I guess you really don't understand how investigations work.

Sounds like a fishing expedition if you don’t even know what you’re looking for.

The only thing I’ve heard from Comer is that he intends to get more bank records. Not sure how that’s going to change anything.

This is not a serious inquiry.

 

[Marener]

For a long time the leftist have tried to make us believe that Shokin was not investigating Burisma. They still parrot that now even though the evidence and Shokin himself indicate that he absolutely was investigating Burisma. Is that PROOF of why Joe demanded he be fired? Not by itself alone. But it sure doesn't meet the smell test.

And does Shokin claiming he wasn’t corrupt pass the smell test?

 

[SweetTea]

Hunter Biden was hired before Shokin was, need we remind you of that “fact”? Or maybe you aren’t an expert on the timeline like the Republicans supposedly investigating Biden.

Hunter was hired in 2014. The investigation into Burisma CEO Zlochevsky began in 2012. Oops. messed up your narrative.

 

[SweetTea]

And does Shokin claiming he wasn’t corrupt pass the smell test?

Given the fact that after he was fired Hunter's boss was magically exonerated. Yeah, again, you aren't too bright.

 

[Marener]

Hunter was hired in 2014. The investigation into Burisma CEO Zlochevsky began in 2012. Oops. messed up your narrative.

They mythical investigation that no one can seem to corroborate.