The Impeachment Thread

#376
#376
carlos86 said:
LMAO!!!! 9 times?????
Click to expand...

That by itself isn't enough to give this story legs and staying power, though. We need to know what Trump "promised" Zelensky in exchange for working with Giuliani in an investigation of Hunter Biden. We need to hear from the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson. He is the internal watchdog for the intelligence community and a non-partisan official. Atkinson's letter to the House Intelligence Committee detailed his concerns and stated that he believes that the whistleblower's complaint being kept from Congress is both "urgent and relates to one of the most important and significant of the (Director of National Intelligence's) responsibilities to the American people". The fact that the Trump Administration is trying so hard to keep Michael Atkinson from briefing Congress on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint is very suspicious. It is an indication that the White House Counsel understands that Trump has done something wrong. This story isn't going to die until Atkinson is allowed to brief Congress... that is for certain.
 
#386
#386
C-south said:
Is Secretary of State not a “high office”?
Click to expand...
Sure, it is... and my comment still holds. "Everybody" who has held high office has not tried to bribe a foreign government. Now, has it happened before? Probably, but that wouldn't be a defense of Trump... but of course, this is still in the "allegedly" stage. I understand this could turn out to be nothing. It completely depends on what, if anything, Trump "promised" Zelensky in exchange for assisting Giuliani's investigation of Hunter Biden.
 
#387
#387
BowlBrother85 said:
No, we don't. We just need the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, to be allowed to brief Congress on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint. Nothing more or less than that.
Click to expand...

So you’re ok with Biden having a special prosecutor fired, who was investigating his son, by holding s a billion in needed funds as ransom from our ally?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Franklin Pierce
#388
#388
BowlBrother85 said:
Sure, it is... and my comment still holds. "Everybody" who has held high office has not tried to bribe a foreign government. Now, has it happened before? Probably, but that wouldn't be a defense of Trump... but of course, this is still in the "allegedly" stage. I understand this could turn out to be nothing. It completely depends on what, if anything, Trump "promised" Zelensky in exchange for assisting Giuliani's investigation of Hunter Biden.
Click to expand...

Sounds like opposition research based on actual facts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol
#389
#389
hjeagle1vol said:
So you’re ok with Biden having a special prosecutor fired, who was investigating his son, by holding s a billion in needed funds for our ally?
Click to expand...
You want to change the subject and I understand why. I expect a lot of that in the coming days from the Trump apologists. The subject here is simple:

Did Donald Trump promise the Ukrainian President Zelensky a change in U.S. policy and monetary aid in exchange for assisting his attorney, Rudy Giuliani in an investigation of Hunter Biden?

If the answer is "no", then there is nothing to this ... but if it is "yes"? Then we have yet another Trump scandal. The Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, should be allowed to brief Congress on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint. Atkinson is not a political partisan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#391
#391
C-south said:
Sounds like opposition research based on actual facts.
Click to expand...
No... bribery is bribery and it's usually a felony. If Trump didn't offer Zelensky anything in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden? Then all is well in Trump-land... but if (as is being alleged), Trump did "promise" the Ukrainian President Zelensky either a change in U.S. policy, monetary aid, or both... then that is a quid-pro-quo arrangement and it constitutes bribery because the U.S. as a whole was not set to gain anything of value from the arrangement... only Trump and his reelection campaign was set to gain anything.
 
#392
#392
BowlBrother85 said:
You want to change the subject and I understand why. I expect a lot of that in the coming days from the Trump apologists. The subject here is simple:

Did Donald Trump promise the Ukrainian President Zelensky a change in U.S. policy and monetary aid in exchange for assisting his attorney, Rudy Giuliani in an investigation of Hunter Biden?

If the answer is "no", then there is nothing to this ... but if it is "yes"? Then we have yet another Trump scandal. The Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, should be allowed to brief Congress on the substance of the whistleblower's complaint. Atkinson is not a political partisan.
Click to expand...

Change the subject the idiot is bragging about it in the video. Boomerang lol 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#393
#393
BowlBrother85 said:
No... bribery is bribery and it's usually a felony. If Trump didn't offer Zelensky anything in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden? Then all is well in Trump-land... but if (as is being alleged), Trump did "promise" the Ukrainian President Zelensky either a change in U.S. policy, monetary aid, or both... then that is a quid-pro-quo arrangement and it constitutes bribery because the U.S. as a whole was not set to gain anything of value from the arrangement... only Trump and his reelection campaign was set to gain anything.
Click to expand...

I have yet to hear anybody say that this would be considered criminal. Even Tobin downplayed any criminality.
Hunter is not even a part of the campaign.
Should all Biden family members, friends, and business associates be exempt from any investigation because Biden is running?
No one knows if the investigation would or would not fall under national purview.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: hjeagle1vol
#394
#394
Orangeburst65 said:
I have yet to hear anybody say that this would be considered criminal.
Hunter is not even a part of the campaign.
Should all Biden family members, friends, and business associates be exempt from any investigation because Biden is running?
No one knows if the investigation would or would not fall under national purview.
Click to expand...

Ukraine is nothing compared to the Biden’s and China...this is just the opening salvo.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#395
#395
Orangeburst65 said:
I have yet to hear anybody say that this would be considered criminal. Even Tobin.
Hunter is not even a part of the campaign.
Should all Biden family members, friends, and business associates be exempt from any investigation because Biden is running?
No one knows if the investigation would or would not fall under national purview.
Click to expand...
You are missing the point. There is NOTHING wrong with investigating Hunter Biden. There is NOTHING wrong with requesting the Ukrainian President investigate Hunter Biden for political purposes. There is something very wrong with any quid-pro-quo arrangement. If (and once again, this is an enormous 'if' here), President Donald Trump "promised" the Ukrainian President Zelensky, a change in U.S. policy or monetary aid, or both, in exchange for assisting his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, in an investigation of Hunter Biden? Then that constitutes bribery and a felony. Now, if Trump didn't offer Zelensky anything in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden? Then there is nothing to this story.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128
#397
#397
BowlBrother85 said:
You are missing the point. There is NOTHING wrong with investigating Hunter Biden. There is NOTHING wrong with requesting the Ukrainian President investigate Hunter Biden for political purposes. There is something very wrong with any quid-pro-quo arrangement. If (and once again, this is an enormous 'if' here), President Donald Trump "promised" the Ukrainian President Zelensky, a change in U.S. policy or monetary aid, or both, in exchange for assisting his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, in an investigation of Hunter Biden? Then that constitutes bribery and a felony. Now, if Trump didn't offer Zelensky anything in exchange for investigating Hunter Biden? Then there is nothing to this story.
Click to expand...

If this is about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, then this is a non story for Trump. Trump would have every right to withhold funds to a government that interfered in our election process, right?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
#399
#399
Orangeburst65 said:
If this is about Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election, then this is a non story for Trump, only Biden. Trump would have every right to withhold funds to a government that interfered in our election process, right?
Click to expand...
It seems like you are either changing the subject or exploring some hypothetical scenario. I'm not sure which it is. This subject concerns Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President Zelensky in late July, and why someone in the intelligence community (now being referred to as a "whistleblower") who was privy to the phone call, lodged a complaint with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This is also about the expressed concerns of the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, and why he hasn't been allowed to brief Congress on the substance of this "whistleblowers" complaint. He serves as a "watchdog" for the intelligence community and is a non-partisan official.

Could this explain the timing of the "resignation" of Dan Coats on July 28th, as the Director of National Intelligence? Definitely.
 
#400
#400
BowlBrother85 said:
It seems like you are either changing the subject or exploring some hypothetical scenario. I'm not sure which it is. This subject concerns Trump's phone call to the Ukrainian President Zelensky in late July, and why someone in the intelligence community (now being referred to as a "whistleblower") who was privy to the phone call, lodged a complaint with the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This is also about the expressed concerns of the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, and why he hasn't been allowed to brief Congress on the substance of this "whistleblowers" complaint. He serves as a "watchdog" for the intelligence community and is a non-partisan official.

Could this explain the timing of the "resignation" of Dan Coats on July 28th, as the Director of National Intelligence? Definitely.
Click to expand...

It is all hypothetical atp. We will see later next week as Trump has already said he is releasing the transcripts. I am done with the speculation.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top