Ukraine scandal

[Nooblord]

Well the scandal has now led to an impeachment inquiry against the president. Thoughts?

My only thought is “Here we go again” lol. Rushing to conclusions as many times as democrat leaders have, you’d think by now they’d learn to wait for more evidence. Trump raised $5 million within a day of the impeachment inquiry announcement and Biden lost his lead to Warren. A 2020 win practically fell in Trump’s lap if he isn’t impeached, and I have high doubts that he will be. But again, I’m waiting for more info before making any definitive claims. Something a lot of people should try doing.

 

[nintendofan85]

My only thought is “Here we go again” lol. Rushing to conclusions as many times as democrat leaders have, you’d think by now they’d learn to wait for more evidence. Trump raised $5 million within a day of the impeachment inquiry announcement and Biden lost his lead to Warren. A 2020 win practically fell in Trump’s lap if he isn’t impeached, and I have high doubts that he will be. But again, I’m waiting for more info before making any definitive claims. Something a lot of people should try doing.

One concern that is going through my mind is the possibility of Mike Pence, a known homophobe, becoming president. As a bisexual person, he is no friend of mine.

 

[N e s s]

Well the scandal has now led to an impeachment inquiry against the president. Thoughts?

Amazing that this is what has started impeachment hearings instead of the Mueller report. He kinda dug his own grave this time, Republicans are losing control of the narrative.

Things have been wild this week. Republican Senators accidentally emailed all of their planned talking points to Nancy Pelosi, Trump tried to call her to "make the impeachment hearings go away", Guiliani, Barr, and Pence are all involved with trying to get dirt on Joe Biden, etc.

Of course, Republican senators are not going to remove him from office, but this is a start. If the GOP wants to save itself from future embarrassment for supporting Trump now is the time to dump him and take Pence instead, but really they're all criminals for trying to protect him.

- - - Post Merge - - -

My only thought is “Here we go again” lol. Rushing to conclusions as many times as democrat leaders have, you’d think by now they’d learn to wait for more evidence. Trump raised $5 million within a day of the impeachment inquiry announcement and Biden lost his lead to Warren. A 2020 win practically fell in Trump’s lap if he isn’t impeached, and I have high doubts that he will be. But again, I’m waiting for more info before making any definitive claims. Something a lot of people should try doing.

Maybe a start is reading the actual complaint: Whistleblower complaint pdf

The House has started an Impeachment Inquiry, aka they're investigating purported wrong doings at this time. Trump has commited a crime by openly asking a foreign government to target a U.S. citizen for personal political gain, he's already admitted that he asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden according to the transcript he released himself.

- - - Post Merge - - -

One concern that is going through my mind is the possibility of Mike Pence, a known homophobe, becoming president. As a bisexual person, he is no friend of mine.

Pence sucks but getting rid of Trump is a start.

 

[LambdaDelta]

how can we even "go again" when pelosi has refused to start up an impeachment inquiry until now, despite having already more to impeach him on than likely any past president in history?

also, you can almost certainly blame barr's falsifying the summary of the mueller report in order to protect trump for that not being what kicked this off

 

[N e s s]

?From the start, Hunter's role at Burisma was criticized by ethics watchdogs as a conflict of interest for his father, who was still vice president at the time and heavily focused on pressuring Ukraine to do a better job rooting out corruption. But some ethics watchdogs at the time also said that unless there was clear evidence Hunter got the job to influence US foreign policy then there was no cause for concern.?

?So, it's true that Biden was among those who pushed for Shokin to be fired as Ukraine's top prosecutor, but by the time this happened the probe into Burisma was dormant, according to Bloomberg.?

Quotes from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/ukraine-gas-company-burisma-holdings-joe-bidens-son-hunter-explained-2019-9

And again, looking into that will hurt Biden more than it will hurt Trump, that?s why Trump is already talking about putting out the transcripts of the call, and a lot of conservative leaders are encouraging it as well. Every time the media tries to pin something on Trump, it almost always backfires. I don?t think this will be any different. Guess we?ll just wait to see if Trump releases the transcripts, and where it goes from there. My guess is that it?ll be in Trump?s favor and Biden?s detriment.

Hey just wanted to point out real quick that this is literally from the exact same page you sourced:

Though some ethics watchdogs have criticized Hunter's decision to work for Burisma in light of who his father is, there's no evidence of wrongdoing on his part or the former vice president's.

 

[Nooblord]

Hey just wanted to point out real quick that this is literally from the exact same page you sourced:

Did you miss the part where the investigation was never completed? That’s the entire point, lol.

Biden’s scandal is months old, it was brought up because of a video of Biden bragging about withholding $1 billion dollars to get a prosecutor fired. The new president of Ukraine was elected on a platform of getting rid of corruption, Burisma being a company being invested for corruption, which happened to also employ Biden’s son. Clearly a conflict of interest. Not only that, the a CIA director was also on the board of Burisma. Interesting, considering the NYT stupidly announced that the whistleblower is in the CIA. Btw, the whistleblower didn’t even hear the call, his complaint is based off of the accounts of others.

All of this isn’t as simple as you’re making it out to be. Once again, better to wait for more information. Which reminds me, new information just dropped about the prosecutor investigating Burisma, who was fired. I’ll post a link later.

Here it is:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story%3famp

The more we look into it, the worse it’ll get for Biden, if the memo is true. I believe it should be further investigated, and I’m looking forward to it. Things are getting juicy.

 

[Nooblord]

how can we even "go again" when pelosi has refused to start up an impeachment inquiry until now, despite having already more to impeach him on than likely any past president in history?

also, you can almost certainly blame barr's falsifying the summary of the mueller report in order to protect trump for that not being what kicked this off

This is not the first time impeachment has been brought up. Yes, it’s the first time they announced an inquiry for impeachment, but oeople have veen crying impeachment the day Trump became president. So yes, this is yet another instance of “here we go again”. Barr isn’t withholding Mueller’s report, it is available to the public, as well as the Mueller hearing. So I don’t get your point.

 

[LambdaDelta]

people requesting impeachment isn't the same as impeachment actually proceeding, so yeah we've never "gone again"

and honestly, there's already more than enough to impeach him based on known actions to get him elected, and he only increased that number tenfold since. in fact, I'd even go further and say if we had cyber warfare guidelines laid out, trump's actions could even of been labelled as legally treason and gotten him the death penalty. but even beyond that, the only reason trump hasn't been indicated for anything regarding his presidency is because of some asinine doj olc opinion that sitting presidents can't be indicted


and as far as the mueller report goes, my point is that barr flat-out and knowingly lied about the report's findings in his summary to downplay it. not that it doesn't exist publicly

he's supposed to be attorney general to the department of justice, but his actions have shown he's far more interested in being trump's own personal shield and attorney

 

[nintendofan85]

By the way guys, I'd like to provide my opinion here which I'm not necessarily thinking may be disagreed with heavily, but is certainly unconventional nonetheless. However, I'd like to point out what I find hypocritical about Republicans right now.

This is the exact text from the Bill of Rights of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The Sixth Amendment:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

And the Fourteenth Amendment, Section One:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If Hunter Biden did anything wrong, not even taking into consideration here whether he actually did or not, should we really deprive him the rights of a self-defense and so forth? I do not find this matter to be any of Donald Trump's responsibility, like I stated earlier. When Brett Kavanaugh was being nominated to the Supreme Court, the GOP cried foul and said that the Democrats were depriving Kavanaugh of these rights. How is the Republican Party and the Trump administration not trying to do the same thing to Hunter Biden by that definition then? If the federal government really wants to investigate Hunter Biden, it would have to be done so in a politically neutral manner-but we all know Trump and William Barr wouldn't want things that way at all.

- - - Post Merge - - -

Did you miss the part where the investigation was never completed? That’s the entire point, lol.

Biden’s scandal is months old, it was brought up because of a video of Biden bragging about withholding $1 billion dollars to get a prosecutor fired. The new president of Ukraine was elected on a platform of getting rid of corruption, Burisma being a company being invested for corruption, which happened to also employ Biden’s son. Clearly a conflict of interest. Not only that, the a CIA director was also on the board of Burisma. Interesting, considering the NYT stupidly announced that the whistleblower is in the CIA. Btw, the whistleblower didn’t even hear the call, his complaint is based off of the accounts of others.

All of this isn’t as simple as you’re making it out to be. Once again, better to wait for more information. Which reminds me, new information just dropped about the prosecutor investigating Burisma, who was fired. I’ll post a link later.

Here it is:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story%3famp

The more we look into it, the worse it’ll get for Biden, if the memo is true. I believe it should be further investigated, and I’m looking forward to it. Things are getting juicy.

I want you to read what I typed above. I'm sensing a pro-Trump, anti-Biden stance in your posts and quite frankly I don't think any investigation that Trump would try to lead into the Bidens would be considered fair at all.

 

[Nooblord]

It always starts with requesting impeachment, this is no different by default. Requesting impeachment led to the inquiry. What’s there to argue about that?

What was the conclusion of the Mueller investigation? Everyone moved on from Russia after we found out there was no collusion. Sure, there are some people still fixated on aspects of it, as they are fixated on anything that negatively impacts Trump.

And Barr lying is a pretty subjective accusation. The entirety of the Russia investigation is subjective, that’s why nothing came from it. https://www.factcheck.org/2019/05/did-barr-mislead-congress/
The most concrete part of it was that there was no collusion. The part a lot of people that don’t like Trump choose to ignore.

Sorry, I don’t get your point, nintendofan85. Who is denying Biden self defense? And corruption in international affairs a few years ago isn’t quite the same as being accused of something 30 years ago. Did you forget the outcome of that, too?

 

[LambdaDelta]

It always starts with requesting impeachment, this is no different by default. Requesting impeachment led to the inquiry. What?s there to argue about that?

I mean if requests were all it took to start things up, we'd have started impeachment proceedings long ago by now

What was the conclusion of the Mueller investigation? Everyone moved on from Russia after we found out there was no collusion.

In evaluating whether evidence about collective action of multiple individuals constituted a crime, we applied the framework of conspiracy law, not the concept of ?collusion.? In so doing, the Office recognized that the word ?collud[e]? was used in communications with the Acting Attorney General confirming certain aspects of the investigation?s scope and that the term has frequently been invoked in public reporting about the investigation. But collusion is not a specific offense or theory of liability found in the United States Code, nor is it a term of art in federal criminal law. For those reasons, the Office?s focus in analyzing questions of joint criminal liability was on conspiracy as defined in federal law. In connection with that analysis, we addressed the factual question whether members of the Trump Campaign ?coordinat[ed]??a term that appears in the appointment order?with Russian election interference activities. Like collusion, ?coordination? does not have a settled definition in federal criminal law. We understood coordination to require an agreement?tacit or express?between the Trump Campaign and the Russian government on election interference. That requires more than the two parties taking actions that were informed by or responsive to the other?s actions or interests. We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

so thanks for confirming you've ignored the report yourself, by spouting the same usual meaningless nonsense buzzwords

 

[Nooblord]

Seriously, what are you even arguing?

Uh, did you even read it? There was no collusion/coordination, whatever word you want to use.

 

[nintendofan85]

Sorry, I don?t get your point, nintendofan85. Who is denying Biden self defense? And corruption in international affairs a few years ago isn?t quite the same as being accused of something 30 years ago. Did you forget the outcome of that, too?

My point is that everyone who supports the president keeps saying Hunter Biden is a threat to national security, this that and the other, when they're basically trying to strip him of the rights they cried foul on with Brett Kavanaugh. It's absolutely hypocritical on their part.

 

[Nooblord]

Those are 2 completely different circumstances, as I stated in my post. And they both should have been looked into. The Kavanaugh issue has been looked into, and we got a whole lot of redactions from that investigation.

Are you saying that it shouldn’t be looked into? Are you agreeing with people that said the Kavanaugh accusation shouldn’t be investigated? Even if Biden did nothing wrong, the corruption of Burisma shouldn’t be swept under the rug, and it looks like Ukraine won’t be letting that happen.

 

[LambdaDelta]

Seriously, what are you even arguing?

Uh, did you even read it? There was no collusion/coordination, whatever word you want to use.

different words have different meanings, especially in legal application. so word choice is important and not to be hand waved away

also, while the report says it did not establish criminal conduct, it also says it's unable to proclaim innocence as well. which is far less of "there was none" and far more of "we couldn't deem what we found as a high enough standard of proof to rule one way or the other, and want to do this as professionally as possible"

- - - Post Merge - - -

also, kavanaugh's investigation is a known sham in which the fbi was prevented from pursuing anything that actually would've damaged his claim of innocence and people who claimed to be able to corroborate the sexual assault allegations being unable to relay this info to the fbi, despite personally trying to get in touch with investigators themselves

 

[nintendofan85]

Those are 2 completely different circumstances, as I stated in my post. And they both should have been looked into. The Kavanaugh issue has been looked into, and we got a whole lot of redactions from that investigation.

Are you saying that it shouldn’t be looked into? Are you agreeing with people that said the Kavanaugh accusation shouldn’t be investigated? Even if Biden did nothing wrong, the corruption of Burisma shouldn’t be swept under the rug, and it looks like Ukraine won’t be letting that happen.

You are misunderstanding everything that I'm saying. The GOP argued that Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of dirty tricks from the Democratic Party. I'd say the GOP is giving Hunter Biden similar treatment in that regard.

 

[Nooblord]

Did you even read what you quoted? How does it in any way conflict what I’ve been saying. Our justice system wasn’t created to exonerate or prove innocence. You’re proven guilty or not guilty. No matter how you try to dissect the Mueller investigation, it’s conclusion found that there was no coordinating with Russia, as noted in your quote.

Trying not to stray from the Ukraine topic, but Dr Baisley Ford’s own witnesses did not corroborate her accusations. Not to mention the other ones that were redacted. Kinda wish the FBI accepted everything brought to them, too. Probably would’ve fit into that pattern.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/4-new-witnesses-for-christine-blasey-ford-dont-really-corroborate-her-claim-against-kavanaugh%3f_amp=true

And to be honest, you’re like the only one using buzzwords in this entire thread.

- - - Post Merge - - -

You are misunderstanding everything that I'm saying. The GOP argued that Brett Kavanaugh was the victim of dirty tricks from the Democratic Party. I'd say the GOP is giving Hunter Biden similar treatment in that regard.

Oh yeah, then I definitely agree. There are biases and dirty tricks used on both sides. But you definitely said more than that with the whole Bill of Rights thing and Biden being denied self defense. That’s what confused me.

 

[LambdaDelta]

my point is the report never did claim as a matter of fact there was none. that's trumpian spin nonsense

"did not establish" is in no way at all the same as "no x", and is never to be read as such on its own, especially when taken into context with the other parts of the report

also, that's the court that rules on guilt. not investigators. so again, no



and idk why you're posting an opinion article as evidence they were bad corroborators, but the fact that investigators were barred from pursuing certain avenues of investigation still means it was a sham. even if these people had nothing worthwhile to give, a proper investigation would've at least heard them out first. especially when said people were themselves trying to get in touch with investigators

and honestly? even without the investigation, kavanaugh should've had his nomination revoked the instant he knowingly and openly committed perjury during his confirmation hearing

 

[Nooblord]

Again, how does any of that conflict what I’ve been saying? You’re the one claiming Trump committed crimes based on a report you’re basically saying has no definitive conclusion, just a bunch of “if, then, maybe, idk it’s up yo you”. And the keyword in proven guitly/not guilty is “proven”. That’s the point of the investigation.

What you quoted supports my argument more than it does yours. There is nothing to spin, everyone moved on from Russia because of the Mueller report. Maybe it’s time for you to move on from it as well. Democrats are way too obsessed with Trump that they can’t even get anything done for the American people that they should be working for. That will definitely not get him voted out of the White House come 2020.

Well, it’s not an opinion that her witnesses didn’t help her testimony, but you can read into whatever you want to reach the same conclusion.

 

[LambdaDelta]

I'm saying the investigation itself says it's inconclusive in its findings, but if we applied the same standard of proof the regular civilians get, then trump would've undoubtedly been declared guilty multiple times over

also, hard to get anything done when mcconnell blocks just about everything passed in the house from even going to a vote in the senate.

and nah, trump doesn't even take up a small portion of my day. I'd just rather not have known career criminals using the office of the presidency to funnel more money into their businesses. I'll say exactly the same for anyone, irregardless of whatever party affiliation they claim to represent

also

Well, it?s not an opinion that her witnesses didn?t help her testimony

not an opinion

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/4-new-witnesses-for-christine-blasey-ford-dont-really-corroborate-her-claim-against-kavanaugh

not an opinion

lol