CSNbbs

(01-23-2020 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 06:33 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2020 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2020 05:24 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]I asked what would be the difference. You offered up Biden as being a Democrat being a major difference in the thought experiment, like a galvanic response. Obviously Ted Cruz Jr instead of Hunter the coke whore makes a difference that engendered that response.

And no offense, if any ® were put into the place of Hunter Coke World then Democrats would not only *not* impeach, they would revel in it. Again, this points out and underscores the fing partisan sham that it is.

Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

What words did the Democrats use to describe Stormy Daniels?

Not sure. I know they described her progression (stripped and porn star), which she almost certainly self-identified as.

Any idea on your end?

Bimbo, whore, trash. Because she was associated with Trump, there was no holding back on the invective. I did not once hear anybody say "it's her body she can do what she wants with it".

They did? Not exactly going to try and search for examples of that here at work, so could you throw some links out there?

I would be surprised if Dems did, because if anything, they wanted Daniels to be credible to bolster the allegations against Trump...

Quote:But in the case of Hunter, I think the words "coke whore" probably refer to somebody addicted who would do anything to get the money. I don't think Hunter stood on a corner offering his body like a real coke whole. I bet there are lots rich, influential people addicted to drugs, who, because of their situation, do not have to sell themselves. Well, not their body, anyway. Certainly Hunter was selling something. Parental influence, maybe.

But other words and phrases do describe Hunter better than coke whore. That would not be my choice.

OK, I answered your question. Your turn.

Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep Hunter and Joe from testifying under oath?

Two, pretty obvious, reasons.

1) Dems likely view it as a ploy by the Reps to distract from the impeachment investigation.

2) Dems likely view this as a ploy by the Reps to try and taint Biden's image ahead of the election, by drumming up headlines linking him to these allegations of bribery and influence peddling. We've seen time and again that the mere allegation of wrong doing is enough for Republicans and conservatives to run wild and start foaming at the mouth.

If Reps started an investigation outside of the impeachment inquiry to evaluate the Burisima allegations and Dems continued to try and block Hunter Biden from testifying, then I would be concerned that they're trying to cover up something.

In a similar vein, why do you think Reps are not supporting the subpeonaing of witness immediately connected to the impeachment allegations?

(01-23-2020 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Two, pretty obvious, reasons.
1) Dems likely view it as a ploy by the Reps to distract from the impeachment investigation.
2) Dems likely view this as a ploy by the Reps to try and taint Biden's image ahead of the election, by drumming up headlines linking him to these allegations of bribery and influence peddling. We've seen time and again that the mere allegation of wrong doing is enough for Republicans and conservatives to run wild and start foaming at the mouth.
If Reps started an investigation outside of the impeachment inquiry to evaluate the Burisima allegations and Dems continued to try and block Hunter Biden from testifying, then I would be concerned that they're trying to cover up something.
In a similar vein, why do you think Reps are not supporting the subpeonaing of witness immediately connected to the impeachment allegations?

One reason you forgot. If Trump had reason to suspect that Burisma and the Bidens may have engaged in some sort of illegal or corrupt conduct, then he has both a right and a duty to cause it to be investigated. There goes intent, and there goes impeachment. So democrats don't want it to blow up in their faces.

I tend to think that it's pretty self-evident from Hunter's absurdly lucrative arrangement that something was very likely going on somewhere, so I'm not sure their testimonies are required. But they would potentially help establish a basis for investigating. And because it establishes an affirmative defense, it is immediately connected to the impeachment allegations.

I'd do a deal where democrats can call Bolton and maybe a couple of others in exchange for republicans calling Joe, Hunter, and Schiff.

(01-23-2020 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Two, pretty obvious, reasons.

1) Dems likely view it as a ploy by the Reps to distract from the impeachment investigation.

2) Dems likely view this as a ploy by the Reps to try and taint Biden's image ahead of the election, by drumming up headlines linking him to these allegations of bribery and influence peddling. We've seen time and again that the mere allegation of wrong doing is enough for Republicans and conservatives to run wild and start foaming at the mouth.

If Reps started an investigation outside of the impeachment inquiry to evaluate the Burisima allegations and Dems continued to try and block Hunter Biden from testifying, then I would be concerned that they're trying to cover up something.

In a similar vein, why do you think Reps are not supporting the subpeonaing of witness immediately connected to the impeachment allegations?

Pretty much the same as your Biden comments. Republicans regard the whole impeachment as just a smear to try and influence the 2020 election, and any testimony would just be used to smear more, regardless of what the witnesses said.

The whole impeachment is a dog and pony show. I thought the inevitability of acquittal would keep Dems from going sown this road, but apparently they see political help in smearing not only Trump, but all Republicans. Just yesterday Nadler accused all Republican Senators of participating in a cover up. Think that won't get replayed in a dozen Senate races? The whole thing is just an election ploy, much like the one Trump is accused of. Apparently they feel that the hours of coverage and the hundreds of reusable sound bites are worth it. After all, it's not their money that is being spent.

Like any other gamble, it may pay off, but it also can backfire. I think we can come back to this week after the election and see if it had the desired effect for the Democrats or not.

My turn. Do you really believe the impeachment is being pursued because the
Democrats are afraid of a rigged election, or is it being pursued for expected political gain in those elections?

Careful. Your answer could end up being quoted.

(01-23-2020 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Two, pretty obvious, reasons.

1) Dems likely view it as a ploy by the Reps to distract from the impeachment investigation.

2) Dems likely view this as a ploy by the Reps to try and taint Biden's image ahead of the election, by drumming up headlines linking him to these allegations of bribery and influence peddling. We've seen time and again that the mere allegation of wrong doing is enough for Republicans and conservatives to run wild and start foaming at the mouth.

If Reps started an investigation outside of the impeachment inquiry to evaluate the Burisima allegations and Dems continued to try and block Hunter Biden from testifying, then I would be concerned that they're trying to cover up something.

In a similar vein, why do you think Reps are not supporting the subpeonaing of witness immediately connected to the impeachment allegations?

Pretty much the same as your Biden comments. Republicans regard the whole impeachment as just a smear to try and influence the 2020 election, and any testimony would just be used to smear more, regardless of what the witnesses said.

The whole impeachment is a dog and pony show. I thought the inevitability of acquittal would keep Dems from going sown this road, but apparently they see political help in smearing not only Trump, but all Republicans. Just yesterday Nadler accused all Republican Senators of participating in a cover up. Think that won't get replayed in a dozen Senate races? The whole thing is just an election ploy, much like the one Trump is accused of. Apparently they feel that the hours of coverage and the hundreds of reusable sound bites are worth it. After all, it's not their money that is being spent.

Like any other gamble, it may pay off, but it also can backfire. I think we can come back to this week after the election and see if it had the desired effect for the Democrats or not.

My turn. Do you really believe the impeachment is being pursued because the
Democrats are afraid of a rigged election, or is it being pursued for expected political gain in those elections?

Careful. Your answer could end up being quoted.

I think it's being pursued because Trump abused his power and Dems have no reason to try and shield Trump. Trump's made no friends in DC, so the knives were already sharp.

I don't think it has anything to do with the upcoming election.

(01-23-2020 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 09:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 09:34 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]Two, pretty obvious, reasons.

1) Dems likely view it as a ploy by the Reps to distract from the impeachment investigation.

2) Dems likely view this as a ploy by the Reps to try and taint Biden's image ahead of the election, by drumming up headlines linking him to these allegations of bribery and influence peddling. We've seen time and again that the mere allegation of wrong doing is enough for Republicans and conservatives to run wild and start foaming at the mouth.

If Reps started an investigation outside of the impeachment inquiry to evaluate the Burisima allegations and Dems continued to try and block Hunter Biden from testifying, then I would be concerned that they're trying to cover up something.

In a similar vein, why do you think Reps are not supporting the subpeonaing of witness immediately connected to the impeachment allegations?

Pretty much the same as your Biden comments. Republicans regard the whole impeachment as just a smear to try and influence the 2020 election, and any testimony would just be used to smear more, regardless of what the witnesses said.

The whole impeachment is a dog and pony show. I thought the inevitability of acquittal would keep Dems from going sown this road, but apparently they see political help in smearing not only Trump, but all Republicans. Just yesterday Nadler accused all Republican Senators of participating in a cover up. Think that won't get replayed in a dozen Senate races? The whole thing is just an election ploy, much like the one Trump is accused of. Apparently they feel that the hours of coverage and the hundreds of reusable sound bites are worth it. After all, it's not their money that is being spent.

Like any other gamble, it may pay off, but it also can backfire. I think we can come back to this week after the election and see if it had the desired effect for the Democrats or not.

My turn. Do you really believe the impeachment is being pursued because the
Democrats are afraid of a rigged election, or is it being pursued for expected political gain in those elections?

Careful. Your answer could end up being quoted.

I think it's being pursued because Trump abused his power and Dems have no reason to try and shield Trump. Trump's made no friends in DC, so the knives were already sharp.

I don't think it has anything to do with the upcoming election.

I think it has everything to do with the upcoming election. Dems have made getting Trump out of office the Holy Grail of the left - heck, it has been a goal since Election Day 2016 - and that is why they have hurried and put up a flimsy sham attack.

I cannot believe you think this is about abuse of power. I saw Dershowitz on TV late last night, and he made the point that the first president to be accused of abuse of power by his political opposition was George Washington. Even the sainted Obama has been accused, and of of course Lincoln was widely accused of abuse of power.

As for Trump not making friends among the Democrats, I think meeting him halfway would been a start, but instead we have something called "the Resistance". The knives were sharp and out before his first day in office.

Time is running short on the effort to make Trump a one term (or less) President, and they see this as their best chance to prevail in November - not by nominating a good candidate, but by smearing the other side from top to bottom.

Jesus, can we stop acting like these people were prevented from voting?

Yes 0.3 is enough to swing an election... A few hundred in one county in Fla turned a Presidential election

That argument ALSO holds true without voter ID.

You trot out people who forgot their wallet, perhaps weren't actually eligible to vote or who simply ignored iirc 6 years of being told they needed an ID to vote. 'They didn't have it when they arrived to vote' doesn't mean
a) they weren't allowed to cast a provisional vote
b) they weren't able to get one, they just didn't bother to do so
c) they had one and just forgot it
d) they were actually eligible to vote/ were who they claimed to be

Seriously, as far as we know, they'd already voted once and were trying to vote a second time... pretending to be someone else... and claimed they didn't have an ID.


If you want to solve the problem for the 0.3%... or at least the fraction of that 0.3% who actually have trouble getting an ID, then solve the problem for the 0.3% by getting them an ID. You don't cheapen the election for the 99.7%.

(01-22-2020 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

What words did the Democrats use to describe Stormy Daniels?

The only words I ever used were "porn star". What Democrats are you referring to that you think used offensive language about her? I'd be happy to chastise them as well.

(01-23-2020 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep Hunter and Joe from testifying under oath?

Because their testimony does not have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence for a fact that is of consequence in determining the action. Or to put it another way, their testimony is not relevant for the charged articles of impeachment.

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]One reason you forgot. If Trump had reason to suspect that Burisma and the Bidens may have engaged in some sort of illegal or corrupt conduct, then he has both a right and a duty to cause it to be investigated. There goes intent, and there goes impeachment. So democrats don't want it to blow up in their faces.

If Trump suspected this, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about these types of investigations or raise these types of accusations. Someone with his level of power needs to be very sensitive on this type of issue. When Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, Obama called in the leaders of both parties in Congress to talk about it. Trump could have done something like that. Trump's reliance on some individuals outside the government (Giuliani) raises a concern that what he was doing and why he was doing it were not purely for the best interests of the USA.

I mean, if Trump was legitimately just seeking to address corruption in Ukraine and not trying to drag a political rival through the dirt, he did it just about the worst possible way imaginable. He did such a poor job, it doesn't pass the smell test for the majority of americans who now support removing him from office over this.

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd do a deal where democrats can call Bolton and maybe a couple of others in exchange for republicans calling Joe, Hunter, and Schiff.

I see zero reason to call Schiff as a witness. I don't see any reason to call Joe or Hunter either, but I think I'd offer them up on a platter since I'm not a huge Biden fan.

I'll put it this way. What if Hunter Biden is subpoenaed, gets on the stand at the impeachment trial, and says "Yeah, I'm corrupt as the devil himself. Burisma paid me to try and influence my dad and other people in the Obama administration to give them better deals. I tried to do so. I'm corrupt." In my mind, it doesn't mean it was OK for Trump to ask for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma. A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Example. Let's say Biden wins the nomination and beats Trump. Trump announces he is running in 2024. I don't think it is appropriate for Biden to go to Russia and offer up bits of US foreign policy if Russia gives him dirt on the Trump family. This is true whether or not there is any dirt to get. Its just not OK for the President to do that, regardless of his/her name. Biden can't go to Putin and say "if the pee tape is real and you give us the pee tape, the US will stop supporting Ukraine ... annex away comrade!" Biden can't go to China and say the US will stop enforcing IP infringement issues for a few years if China has any dirt on the Trump family from hacking (or other activities). He just can't do it. And if he does it, he should be impeached for it.

(01-23-2020 12:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep Hunter and Joe from testifying under oath?

Because their testimony does not have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence for a fact that is of consequence in determining the action. Or to put it another way, their testimony is not relevant for the charged articles of impeachment.

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]One reason you forgot. If Trump had reason to suspect that Burisma and the Bidens may have engaged in some sort of illegal or corrupt conduct, then he has both a right and a duty to cause it to be investigated. There goes intent, and there goes impeachment. So democrats don't want it to blow up in their faces.

If Trump suspected this, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about these types of investigations or raise these types of accusations. Someone with his level of power needs to be very sensitive on this type of issue. When Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, Obama called in the leaders of both parties in Congress to talk about it. Trump could have done something like that. Trump's reliance on some individuals outside the government (Giuliani) raises a concern that what he was doing and why he was doing it were not purely for the best interests of the USA.

I mean, if Trump was legitimately just seeking to address corruption in Ukraine and not trying to drag a political rival through the dirt, he did it just about the worst possible way imaginable. He did such a poor job, it doesn't pass the smell test for the majority of americans who now support removing him from office over this.

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd do a deal where democrats can call Bolton and maybe a couple of others in exchange for republicans calling Joe, Hunter, and Schiff.

I see zero reason to call Schiff as a witness. I don't see any reason to call Joe or Hunter either, but I think I'd offer them up on a platter since I'm not a huge Biden fan.

I'll put it this way. What if Hunter Biden is subpoenaed, gets on the stand at the impeachment trial, and says "Yeah, I'm corrupt as the devil himself. Burisma paid me to try and influence my dad and other people in the Obama administration to give them better deals. I tried to do so. I'm corrupt." In my mind, it doesn't mean it was OK for Trump to ask for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma. A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Example. Let's say Biden wins the nomination and beats Trump. Trump announces he is running in 2024. I don't think it is appropriate for Biden to go to Russia and offer up bits of US foreign policy if Russia gives him dirt on the Trump family. This is true whether or not there is any dirt to get. Its just not OK for the President to do that, regardless of his/her name. Biden can't go to Putin and say "if the pee tape is real and you give us the pee tape, the US will stop supporting Ukraine ... annex away comrade!" Biden can't go to China and say the US will stop enforcing IP infringement issues for a few years if China has any dirt on the Trump family from hacking (or other activities). He just can't do it. And if he does it, he should be impeached for it.

One crucial item you touched on is that the evidence shows Trump wasn't looking for an investigation, but the ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation. That shows he only cared about the optics.

(01-23-2020 12:07 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2020 11:35 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-22-2020 05:50 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]Do we really need to be mocking people for their drug addiction or drug abuse problems? Do we really need to be using words like "whore"?

What words did the Democrats use to describe Stormy Daniels?

The only words I ever used were "porn star". What Democrats are you referring to that you think used offensive language about her? I'd be happy to chastise them as well.

I don't think anybody needs chastising for saying the truth, even in a form you don't personally care for.

I guess I will get nowhere with the true believers. The faith you guys have in what the party leaders say is impressive.

In the meantime, I note that a Bolton and Biden deal was nixed by the Dems. I guess their desire for the truth is outweighed by the need to protect Biden from having the truth exposed.

If there was corruption, it is germane to this impeachment. If there was none, why the frantic cover up?

Speaking of smell tests, the Dems do not pass theirs.

(01-23-2020 12:55 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 12:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep Hunter and Joe from testifying under oath?

Because their testimony does not have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence for a fact that is of consequence in determining the action. Or to put it another way, their testimony is not relevant for the charged articles of impeachment.

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]One reason you forgot. If Trump had reason to suspect that Burisma and the Bidens may have engaged in some sort of illegal or corrupt conduct, then he has both a right and a duty to cause it to be investigated. There goes intent, and there goes impeachment. So democrats don't want it to blow up in their faces.

If Trump suspected this, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about these types of investigations or raise these types of accusations. Someone with his level of power needs to be very sensitive on this type of issue. When Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, Obama called in the leaders of both parties in Congress to talk about it. Trump could have done something like that. Trump's reliance on some individuals outside the government (Giuliani) raises a concern that what he was doing and why he was doing it were not purely for the best interests of the USA.

I mean, if Trump was legitimately just seeking to address corruption in Ukraine and not trying to drag a political rival through the dirt, he did it just about the worst possible way imaginable. He did such a poor job, it doesn't pass the smell test for the majority of americans who now support removing him from office over this.

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd do a deal where democrats can call Bolton and maybe a couple of others in exchange for republicans calling Joe, Hunter, and Schiff.

I see zero reason to call Schiff as a witness. I don't see any reason to call Joe or Hunter either, but I think I'd offer them up on a platter since I'm not a huge Biden fan.

I'll put it this way. What if Hunter Biden is subpoenaed, gets on the stand at the impeachment trial, and says "Yeah, I'm corrupt as the devil himself. Burisma paid me to try and influence my dad and other people in the Obama administration to give them better deals. I tried to do so. I'm corrupt." In my mind, it doesn't mean it was OK for Trump to ask for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma. A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Example. Let's say Biden wins the nomination and beats Trump. Trump announces he is running in 2024. I don't think it is appropriate for Biden to go to Russia and offer up bits of US foreign policy if Russia gives him dirt on the Trump family. This is true whether or not there is any dirt to get. Its just not OK for the President to do that, regardless of his/her name. Biden can't go to Putin and say "if the pee tape is real and you give us the pee tape, the US will stop supporting Ukraine ... annex away comrade!" Biden can't go to China and say the US will stop enforcing IP infringement issues for a few years if China has any dirt on the Trump family from hacking (or other activities). He just can't do it. And if he does it, he should be impeached for it.

One crucial item you touched on is that the evidence shows Trump wasn't looking for an investigation, but the ANNOUNCEMENT of an investigation. That shows he only cared about the optics.

An announcement kind of locks Ukraine into a real investigation.

Quote: A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Tell that to then- Vice President Joe Biden. If you are going to set the bar at 'investigating a political rival', you really should actually include 'squashing an investigation into HIS son'.

I mean, seriously, you are going on the warpath for a series of actions, and all the while ignoring the almost *exact* series of actions at the front end?

(01-23-2020 12:23 PM)mrbig Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 09:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: [ -> ]Why are Democrats fighting so hard to keep Hunter and Joe from testifying under oath?

Because their testimony does not have any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence for a fact that is of consequence in determining the action. Or to put it another way, their testimony is not relevant for the charged articles of impeachment.

Not exactly. Such testimony could have a significant bearing on Trump's affirmative defense, which is that a president has both the power and the duty to cause potential illegal or corrupt activity by an American citizen in a foreign country to be investigated, and to seek the help of such foreign country in such investigation.

But the real reason is quite simple. If either Joe or Hunter takes the stand, the Biden candidacy is toast. The good news is that democrats are then left with a bunch of left wing nutcases who probably are not electable. The bad news is that one of them might be.

Quote:

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]One reason you forgot. If Trump had reason to suspect that Burisma and the Bidens may have engaged in some sort of illegal or corrupt conduct, then he has both a right and a duty to cause it to be investigated. There goes intent, and there goes impeachment. So democrats don't want it to blow up in their faces.

If Trump suspected this, there is a right way and a wrong way to go about these types of investigations or raise these types of accusations. Someone with his level of power needs to be very sensitive on this type of issue. When Russia was interfering in the 2016 election, Obama called in the leaders of both parties in Congress to talk about it. Trump could have done something like that. Trump's reliance on some individuals outside the government (Giuliani) raises a concern that what he was doing and why he was doing it were not purely for the best interests of the USA.
I mean, if Trump was legitimately just seeking to address corruption in Ukraine and not trying to drag a political rival through the dirt, he did it just about the worst possible way imaginable. He did such a poor job, it doesn't pass the smell test for the majority of americans [sic] who now support removing him from office over this.

Really? So it's not that he investigated but he investigated the wrong way? That's the kind of stuff that Beltway bandits get their drawers tied in knots about, but the rest of the country gives not a rat's patootie about. And keep in mind that Trump was not merely wanting to address corruption in Ukraine, but more specifically, corruption by a US citizen in Ukraine.

Quote:

(01-23-2020 09:51 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote: [ -> ]I'd do a deal where democrats can call Bolton and maybe a couple of others in exchange for republicans calling Joe, Hunter, and Schiff.

I see zero reason to call Schiff as a witness. I don't see any reason to call Joe or Hunter either, but I think I'd offer them up on a platter since I'm not a huge Biden fan.

Schiff can testify as to how much coaching up the whistleblower got, and he can be questioned about a lot of the scheming that went on. Schiff as also offered as fact, and quite bombastically so, a number of things that have turned out to be false. I'd like to see him questioned about those. And one thing I'd like to see him hit with is the CNN interview from las year were he said that "most of" the dossier sections presented to the court had been verified. To which the question is, "So you have stated for the record that the FBI abused the FISA process?"

Quote:I'll put it this way. What if Hunter Biden is subpoenaed, gets on the stand at the impeachment trial, and says "Yeah, I'm corrupt as the devil himself. Burisma paid me to try and influence my dad and other people in the Obama administration to give them better deals. I tried to do so. I'm corrupt." In my mind, it doesn't mean it was OK for Trump to ask for an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens/Burisma.

Then I would say that you are an extremely biased and prejudiced individual.

Quote:A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

I don't think it matters what Joe or Hunter says. Whether there was actual corruption or not, or whether either will admit it on the stand, is really irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there was reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Query, if it were Joe Blow with no political ambition, do you think it would be appropriate to investigate? If not, why not? If so, then why does Biden's political candidacy exempt him? It seems to me that the public has an even greater interest in knowing about someone who might be president.

Quote:Example. Let's say Biden wins the nomination and beats Trump. Trump announces he is running in 2024. I don't think it is appropriate for Biden to go to Russia and offer up bits of US foreign policy if Russia gives him dirt on the Trump family. This is true whether or not there is any dirt to get. Its just not OK for the President to do that, regardless of his/her name. Biden can't go to Putin and say "if the pee tape is real and you give us the pee tape, the US will stop supporting Ukraine ... annex away comrade!" Biden can't go to China and say the US will stop enforcing IP infringement issues for a few years if China has any dirt on the Trump family from hacking (or other activities). He just can't do it. And if he does it, he should be impeached for it.

But I don't know that Trump offered anything even remotely as meaningful as you are suggesting in your hypotheticals.

Here is the real problem with Ukraine. Putin can pretty much do whatever he wants, and we really can't do anything about it. We cannot insert any kind of meaningful military presence to deter Putin. We cannot really impose meaningful sanctions as long as Europe is dependent on Russia for oil and gas--and that's not changing in the short run. Our normal response would be to send a carrier task group or two, but we can't send carriers trough the Bosporus/Dardanelles without violating international law. The best plan long range would be to give Putin something that he wants in return for we (and Ukraine) getting something that we/they want. I'd start with Putin gets Crimea (which is basically a done deal) and Donbas (which is majority Russian-speaking), and in return the remainder of Ukraine gets to pursue EU and/or NATO membership. Putin can't agree to that, as it pretty much dooms Russia, but I'd start with that and see where he goes. We need a policy toward Ukraine that reflects the realities and does the best job it can of protecting our interests given those realities. We don't have one.

(01-23-2020 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Tell that to then- Vice President Joe Biden. If you are going to set the bar at 'investigating a political rival', you really should actually include 'squashing an investigation into HIS son'.

I mean, seriously, you are going on the warpath for a series of actions, and all the while ignoring the almost *exact* series of actions at the front end?

It's anything but proven that Biden squashed an investigation, and there is ample evidence that what Biden supported, with respect to Ukrainian corruption, was inline with other world leaders and was more likely to increase scrutiny of corruption within Ukraine...

Quote:

Quote:A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

I don't think it matters what Joe or Hunter says. Whether there was actual corruption or not, or whether either will admit it on the stand, is really irrelevant. What is relevant is whether there was reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.

Query, if it were Joe Blow with no political ambition, do you think it would be appropriate to investigate? If not, why not? If so, then why does Biden's political candidacy exempt him? It seems to me that the public has an even greater interest in knowing about someone who might be president.

Here is another one for the laugh track: Shouldnt investigate a rival "even if that political rival is corrupt as hell."

Really? Are you serious here?

So a President should abdicate every investigation into a political rival "even if the political rival is corrupt as hell"? A cornerstone of the Executive branch is to enforce the laws, and to execute enforcement. Here you are saying a President *absolutely* *must* abdicate enforcement of the a core executive *duty* because the subject is a "political rival". EVEN IF THE POLITICAL RIVAL IS CORRUPT AS HELL.

Assume the political rival say, threatened to detonate a nuke in Chicago. Are you still comfortable with that amazing as **** statement?

I mean, you are seriously suggesting that the President vacate a core duty of the Executive Office? I'll be blunt here, I am gobsmacked that someone would advocate a 'ban on investigation' *even when the rival is corrupt as hell*.

Does that sound horrendously smart to you?

(01-23-2020 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Tell that to then- Vice President Joe Biden. If you are going to set the bar at 'investigating a political rival', you really should actually include 'squashing an investigation into HIS son'.
I mean, seriously, you are going on the warpath for a series of actions, and all the while ignoring the almost *exact* series of actions at the front end?

It's anything but proven that Biden squashed an investigation, and there is ample evidence that what Biden supported, with respect to Ukrainian corruption, was inline with other world leaders and was more likely to increase scrutiny of corruption within Ukraine...

All of which is irrelevant to the larger point.

(01-23-2020 09:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-23-2020 07:52 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote: A President should not be allowed to withhold Congressionally-approved aid or a Presidential meeting just to induce a foreign government to announce an investigation into a political rival, even if that political rival is corrupt as hell.

Tell that to then- Vice President Joe Biden. If you are going to set the bar at 'investigating a political rival', you really should actually include 'squashing an investigation into HIS son'.

I mean, seriously, you are going on the warpath for a series of actions, and all the while ignoring the almost *exact* series of actions at the front end?

It's anything but proven that Biden squashed an investigation, and there is ample evidence that what Biden supported, with respect to Ukrainian corruption, was inline with other world leaders and was more likely to increase scrutiny of corruption within Ukraine...

Naw, he just got the fing prosecutor fired.

After threatening to withhold funds.

Funny that.

Funny he bragged about that as well.

On video.

And there is evidence as well that that prosecutor was investigating Burisma corruption. But you 'forgot' that.

Funny that.

Yep, Trump == completely different. Cha cha cha.

With Biden, it isnt quid pro quo ---- It's quid pro Joe.

Quote:I said, 'You’re not getting the billion. ... I looked at them and said, ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.' Well, son of a b----. He got fired.

Yep. *Completely* different.... cha cha cha.