The Impeachment Trial

[firstfloor]

Dershowitz spouts nonsense, as expected:

Frank O. Bowman, a University of Missouri law professor and author of the book “High Crimes and Misdemeanors, said Dershowitz’s view is out of step with mainstream constitutional scholars and historians.
“

In making this argument, Alan is essentially alone and I mean alone,” Bowman said Tuesday.
Republican senators, he said, are seizing on Dershowitz’s argument because it gives them cover not to convict a president in their own party.


“What Dershowitz did yesterday was stand up and be a guy with Harvard attached to his name and spout complete nonsense that’s totally unsupported by any scholarship, anywhere,” Bowman said.

WaPo

[whag]

Does it matter? The Democrat precedent is that someone can be investigated without a crime being specified. Hunter doesn't have anything to hide, right? So what's the problem?

Trump doesn’t have anything to hide right? So what’s the problem?

[seanD]

Trump doesn’t have anything to hide right? So what’s the problem?

Investigation has been ongoing since Trump was elected.

[Watermelon]

So, a few questions... in fact, let's start with one.

A) Do you believe Hunter Biden was asked to be on that board because he

i) Knew a lot about Natural Gas
ii) Was a subject matter expert in energy
iii) His last name was Biden

His last name was Biden.

I don’t like to brag, but I’m really good at multiple choice questions.

[Cow Poke]

He was most likely given the job because his last name was Biden.

So, why would anybody give him THAT MUCH MONEY with absolutely no experience in the energy sector, just because his name was Biden....

That, why he got the job, is of course is irrelevant.

So, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", eh?

A) I'm pleased that you're not going to pretend that he got the job for NO OTHER REASON that his name was Biden.
2) I'm not surprised that you toss that out as a meaningless fact.

[JimL]

Ah so if Trump DIDN'T do it for personal gain, then it wasn't illegal or extortion?

Same action, different motive makes all the difference?

Extortion in that sense, a quid pro quo, would not be illegal if in the interests of the U.S. In other words to offer aid with requirments attached is not in and of itself illegal, or as M Mulvaney would put it, we do this all the time. So yes, motive makes all the difference. But to do it, you also have to do it in a legal manner, i.e you must inform Congress as to the reason for the hold. What Trump did was to withhold military aid as well as economic aid, appropriated by congress, without telling congress of the hold, and he did it for personal gain against a political oppnent, not to force Ukraine to clean up corruption in general. As a matter of fact, Trump actually praised the very corrupt Russian backed Prosecutor General that Ukraine ousted.

[Mountain Man]

Obvious answer, Ukraine was corrupt under the Russian backed regime and those people, including the known to be corrupt Prosecutor General, was still in place after the election of Zelensky. Zelensky ran and won on the promise to clean up the corruption and the U.S., the European Union, and the IMF were not going to assist them without his acting on that promise. He did, he took measures to rid the country of the corruption to the satisfaction of the U.S. at which point the aid was appropriated. Trump then put a hold on that aid, as well as a hold on a White House visit, which Zelensky still hasn't gotten by the way, in order to extort Ukraine into smearing Biden for his own personal political gain.

Where's the evidence that Shokin was corrupt? I still haven't seen it. And why did the US only begin to demand Shokin be fired after Hunter and friends contacted the Obama administration?

But they have nothing to hide, so they shouldn't have any problems with being questioned under oath.

[JimL]

So, why would anybody give him THAT MUCH MONEY with absolutely no experience in the energy sector, just because his name was Biden....



So, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain", eh?

A) I'm pleased that you're not going to pretend that he got the job for NO OTHER REASON that his name was Biden.
2) I'm not surprised that you toss that out as a meaningless fact.

If the U.S. believes it has reason to investigate Biden, then they should do so. That is irrelevant as to whether Trump abused his power by extorting Ukraine to announce on CNN that they were opening an investigation.

[oxmixmudd]

Where's the evidence that Shokin was corrupt? I still haven't seen it. And why did the US only begin to demand Shokin be fired after Hunter and friends contacted the Obama administration?

But they have nothing to hide, so they shouldn't have any problems with being questioned under oath.

Yes you have seen it - unless you just haven't read the links you've been shown.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

Source: above[In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.[33

[34]

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".[22] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[33]

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[35][36] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

In a sworn affidavit dated 4 September 2019,[37] for a European court, Shokin testified that "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."[38] Shokin wrote the affidavit in support of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.[39] John Herbst, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, said that Shokin's support of Firtash, who had been arrested for bribery in 2014, undercuts Shokin's claims to be motivated by transparency.[40][41]

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[29][42][43] However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[44][45]

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[46] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[47] US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump.

© Copyright Original Source

Now look at the bolded parts. What MORON thinks that Joe Biden is going to get rid of the fellow that is NOT investigating Burisma BECAUSE he is NOT investigating Burisma in order to protect(???) his son is on the board of Burisma?

This little bit of spin I just gotta hear:

Joe Biden unscrupulously got rid of the corrupt person NOT investigating Burisma because ... ?

[seanD]

His last name was Biden.

I don’t like to brag, but I’m really good at multiple choice questions.

And why do you think that is?

To me it looks like the head of Burisma, who was corrupt, knew he could use the son of a US VP as cover for his corruption. Then it just so happens to turn out that the same son of the US VP ordered the prosecutor investigating the company head for corruption to be fired.

[seer]

Oops...

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...te-john-bolton

[Cow Poke]

If the U.S. believes it has reason to investigate Biden, then they should do so.

Jim, it has been LEGEND that Biden's participation on the board of Burisma is nothing but corruption. There simply hasn't been an incredibly partisan group of politicians committed to destroying his life over it.

That is irrelevant as to whether Trump abused his power by extorting Ukraine to announce on CNN that they were opening an investigation.

How do you know that, Jim? Besides LiberalTalkingPointsForDummies, how do you know that the Biden situation wasn't part of the corruption that needed investigated?

Ah, I know --- because it doesn't serve the purpose of Orange Man Bad!

[JimL]

Where's the evidence that Shokin was corrupt? I still haven't seen it. And why did the US only begin to demand Shokin be fired after Hunter and friends contacted the Obama administration?

Whether you have seen it or not is irrelevant, the U.S., the European Union, the IMF and the Ukrainian people saw it. As for your assertion that Hunter sought Obama's help in getting Shokin fired, where's your proof of that?

But they have nothing to hide, so they shouldn't have any problems with being questioned under oath.

I couldn't care less if they are questioned under oath, but that would have nothing to do with whether Trump abused his power so it has no place in this trial.

[Mountain Man]

Yes you have seen it - unless you just haven't read the links you've been shown.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktor_Shokin

Source: above[In 2012, the Ukrainian prosecutor general Viktor Pshonka began investigating Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, owner of the natural gas company Burisma Holdings, over allegations of money laundering, tax evasion, and corruption during 2010–2012.[33

[34]

In 2015, Shokin became the prosecutor general, inheriting the investigation. The Obama administration and other governments and non-governmental organizations soon became concerned that Shokin was not adequately pursuing corruption in Ukraine, was protecting the political elite, and was regarded as "an obstacle to anti-corruption efforts".[22] Among other issues, he was slow-walking the investigation into Zlochevsky and Burisma and using the threat of prosecution to try to solicit bribes from Mr. Zlochevsky and his team – to the extent that Obama officials were considering launching their own criminal investigation into the company for possible money laundering.[33]

While visiting Kiev in December 2015, then-U.S. Vice President Joe Biden warned Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that, if he did not fire Shokin, the Obama administration was prepared to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees. Biden later said: "I looked at them and said, 'I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.' [...] He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time."[35][36] Shokin was dismissed by Parliament in late March 2016.

In a sworn affidavit dated 4 September 2019,[37] for a European court, Shokin testified that "On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the criminal case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company, but I refused to close this investigation."[38] Shokin wrote the affidavit in support of Ukrainian oligarch Dmytro Firtash.[39] John Herbst, the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine during the George W. Bush administration, said that Shokin's support of Firtash, who had been arrested for bribery in 2014, undercuts Shokin's claims to be motivated by transparency.[40][41]

Shokin claimed in May 2019 that he had been investigating Burisma Holdings.[29][42][43] However, Vitaly Kasko, who had been Shokin's deputy overseeing international cooperation before resigning in February 2016 citing corruption in the office, provided documents to Bloomberg News indicating that under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma had been dormant.[44][45]

The investigation into Burisma only pertained to events happening before[46] Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, joined the board of directors of Burisma Holdings in 2014.[47] US President Donald Trump's subsequent bid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to announce an investigation of Joe Biden in relation to Burisma led to the December 2019 impeachment of Trump.

© Copyright Original Source

Now look at the bolded parts. What MORON thinks that Joe Biden is going to get rid of the fellow that is NOT investigating Burisma BECAUSE he is NOT investigating Burisma in order to protect(???) his son is on the board of Burisma?

This little bit of spin I just gotta hear:

Joe Biden unscrupulously got rid of the corrupt person NOT investigating Burisma because ... ?

Right... Wikipedia. How about a reliable source?

For one thing, Shokin had executed a raid on Burisma's president which prompted Hunter to contact the Obama administration, so it was an active investigation. A month later, daddu shows up and says, "If you want the money, you'll fire the prosecutor who's messing with my boy."

https://johnsolomonreports.com/the-u...merica-to-see/

[rogue06]

Oops...

Feinstein leans toward acquitting Trump as his defense team ends impeachment arguments

https://www.latimes.com/politics/sto...te-john-bolton

“Nine months left to go, the people should judge. We are a republic, we are based on the will of the people — the people should judge,” Feinstein said Tuesday, after the president’s team finished a three-day presentation in his defense. “That was my view and it still is my view.”