(12-03-2019 09:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

ALL information? Link?

Not ALL, but some that meets certain standards. And what is being withheld arguably meets those standards.

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 10:05 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  What "rumors"? Did you not listen to testimony the last two weeks, UNDER OATH, that backed up what was in the WB report?
These are not rumors. We know fairly certain what happened on the call and what happened with the aid being held up. What we don't know yet is whether the acts by the president will get him removed from office by the senate. Aid was withheld, fact. Investigations into the Bidens were requested, fact. The White House is withholding evidence from Congress, fact. Now, we can argue legalities and whether these actions are justified or not, but you're not entitled to call these facts "rumors".

Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.
That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.
Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.
If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?
Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?
Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?
Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.
#ETTD

Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.
If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.

That’s why you investigate. Speaking of not passing the smell test, paying Hunter Biden an ungodly amount of money for something he admittedly knows nothing about, simply reeks of impropriety. But without investigation, how does one find evidence?

Why you would have them investigate is simple. They have the jurisdiction, they presumably have the subpoena power. Tell me, without the cooperation of the Ukrainian government, how do we obtain Burisma business records?

(12-03-2019 10:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Aid was delayed, fact. And investigations into corruption, with which the Bidens were legitimately linked, were requested, fact. The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

That's nowhere near enough to get a jaywalking conviction, much less conviction and removal from office in an impeachment proceeding.

Let's look at the basic elements of a crime. You must have a act that breaks a law, that was committed while the defendant was in a criminal state of mind. You have secondhand recitations of actions. But assuming the actions took place, what law or laws did they break? And if Trump believed legitimately that there was corruption going on in Ukraine, then where is the criminal state of mind? If he legitimately believed the Bidens may have been involved in such corruption, then why should he have left any stone unturned in getting to the bottom of it? And paying Hunter Biden gobs of money for something that he knew absolutely nothing about is clearly a sufficient red flag to support a reasonable belief that the Bidens may have been in on something corrupt. I said a reasonable belief, not absolute crystal clarity, and that's why you investigate things.

If it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that Donald Trump illegally withheld funds from Ukraine for the express purpose of digging up dirt on Joe Biden, then you might have a case. But you don't have that, and quite frankly I don't see how you get that.

Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?

Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?

Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?

Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.

#ETTD

Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... If it walks like a duck...

I can see his point. Who would think there might be corruption there. Hunter Biden, the dishonorably discharged, whore daddy, stripper handling, brother widow poking, coke smoking screw up got a legitimate job on the board of a corrupt oil and gas company run by a corrupt oligarch in a country depending on his daddy to distribute billions of dollars for oil and gas development for three million dollars in compensation with absolutely no expertise or experience and when the deal turns bad daddy has the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for a billion dollars. Nothing to see here. Orange Man Bad!

(12-03-2019 10:13 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:23 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-02-2019 09:23 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The white house has constitutional authority to withhold information from congress, fact.

ALL information? Link?

Not ALL, but some that meets certain standards. And what is being withheld arguably meets those standards.

Uh huh.

(12-03-2019 10:23 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 10:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:22 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Are you treating this like a regular crime in a regular court that you and I are subject to, or a matter clearly spelled out in the Constitution that applies to the president and other elected officials?

Regardless, I have N O doubt trump held up the funds for the sole purpose of having Ukraine announce an investigation. They have yet to provide any just basis as to why the funds were held up, and then they just released them anyway as soon as they were caught when no further corruption in Ukraine was being investigated. So they're saying Ukraine just magically became un-corrupt?

Additionally, if they claim fund were held because Ukraine is/was corrupt, that just doesn't hold water since trump is asking them to also launch an investigation into Biden. If they are corrupt, why would you have them investigate a US citizen...and your likely presidential opponent in 2020?

Doesn't pass the smell test and I think you know that.

#ETTD

Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... If it walks like a duck...

I can see his point. Who would think there might be corruption there. Hunter Biden, the dishonorably discharged, whore daddy, stripper handling, brother widow poking, coke smoking screw up got a legitimate job on the board of a corrupt oil and gas company run by a corrupt oligarch in a country depending on his daddy to distribute billions of dollars for oil and gas development for three million dollars in compensation with absolutely no expertise or experience and when the deal turns bad daddy has the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for a billion dollars. Nothing to see here. Orange Man Bad!

And as I've said on many occasions, I'm totally fine with an investigation into Hunter and Joe. But do it properly with our investigative agencies, not by the presidents "lawyer".

(12-03-2019 10:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 10:23 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 10:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... If it walks like a duck...

I can see his point. Who would think there might be corruption there. Hunter Biden, the dishonorably discharged, whore daddy, stripper handling, brother widow poking, coke smoking screw up got a legitimate job on the board of a corrupt oil and gas company run by a corrupt oligarch in a country depending on his daddy to distribute billions of dollars for oil and gas development for three million dollars in compensation with absolutely no expertise or experience and when the deal turns bad daddy has the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for a billion dollars. Nothing to see here. Orange Man Bad!

And as I've said on many occasions, I'm totally fine with an investigation into Hunter and Joe. But do it properly with our investigative agencies, not by the presidents "lawyer".

so, by your assertion, he's not allowed to gather intel....

yep, that's your redwings TTT...

(12-03-2019 10:47 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 10:23 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 10:05 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:34 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 09:31 AM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  Why no concern for Biden’s corruption.

If Biden is going to be Trump’s opponent in the 2020 election I can see why the democrats want to take Trump out. Biden is a disaster.

What corruption? The evidence is just not there. And no, nothing from journalistic hack fox news contributor John Solomon is credible.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see... If it walks like a duck...

I can see his point. Who would think there might be corruption there. Hunter Biden, the dishonorably discharged, whore daddy, stripper handling, brother widow poking, coke smoking screw up got a legitimate job on the board of a corrupt oil and gas company run by a corrupt oligarch in a country depending on his daddy to distribute billions of dollars for oil and gas development for three million dollars in compensation with absolutely no expertise or experience and when the deal turns bad daddy has the Ukrainian prosecutor fired for a billion dollars. Nothing to see here. Orange Man Bad!

And as I've said on many occasions, I'm totally fine with an investigation into Hunter and Joe. But do it properly with our investigative agencies, not by the presidents "lawyer".

So I can deduct from your post here that there is nothing wrong with the president asking for an investigation it’s just that Rudy G may have been a part of it?

I'm sure someone at the OMB had a TOTALLY legit reason to be calling Rudy.

Yup...Devin is ON the case.

Is that the one who owns the company called fraud guaranteed.

Perfect slogan for the Republican party.

Where’s the call from Hunter?

From Lev Parnas' attorney:

So are we convicting on phone calls now? Let’s put down some firm rules here because I don’t think you will want to go down that road.

(12-03-2019 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From Lev Parnas' attorney:

What is any of that supposed to "prove"?

They talked? And?

Likely about their yoga schedules and grandkids.


Funny, which deep-stater leaked all that?

(12-03-2019 03:59 PM)SoMs Eagle Wrote:  So are we convicting on phone calls now? Let’s put down some firm rules here because I don’t think you will want to go down that road.

If he doesn't start talking, what are we left with? And your insinuation that I care two ***** if a democrat goes down in all this, including any Biden, is misguided.

Quote:On Sunday, in a Fox News interview, Nunes declined to directly answer a question about that allegation, but threatened to sue CNN for reporting it.

“Bottom line, were you in Vienna with Shokin?” asked Fox interviewer Maria Bartiromo.

“I really want to answer all these questions,” Nunes replied. But the congressman said he was unable to do so “because there is criminal activity here; we’re working with different law-enforcement agencies.”

“I think you can understand that I can’t compete by trying to debate this out with the public media when 90% of the media are totally corrupt,” he said.

“Everyone’s going to know the truth; everyone’s going to know all the facts,” Nunes said. “I will win in court.”

California’s Nunes, impeachment inquisitor, dodges question over alleged meeting with Ukrainian ex-prosecutor

Whatchya hiding Dev? Speak up...we can't hear you.

(12-03-2019 04:03 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From Lev Parnas' attorney:

What is any of that supposed to "prove"?

They talked? And?

Likely about their yoga schedules and grandkids.


Funny, which deep-stater leaked all that?

They were likely planning a wedding I'm sure.

But no, sorry, these weren't leaks. This came from documents released to congress in their impeachment probe IIRC.

And speaking of deep-state leakers, remember when good 'ole Dev made his midnight run to the White House to give them information on the committee he was chairing at the time?

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Simply allow those with direct knowledge to testify... Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, McGhan need to come forward, under oath, and testify on the President’s behalf.

(12-03-2019 04:09 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(11-28-2019 09:34 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-27-2019 06:05 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  The Whistleblowers claims have been backed by testimony, under oath. So far, no one has been willing to do the same for the President.
Surely Rudy, Pompeo, Pence, McGahn or Mulvaney would be willing to testify on his behalf?

As I understand it, the whistleblower basically said that he/she had heard rumors, and what has been supported is that they heard similar rumors. So in that sense, yes those claims have been confirmed.

Are the rumors true? We don’t know. We know that it’s true there we rumors.

Simply allow those with direct knowledge to testify... Mulvaney, Pompeo, Guiliani, McGhan need to come forward, under oath, and testify on the President’s behalf.

Why?

Why do they "need" to, or why would they even want to? To what end?

(12-03-2019 04:06 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 04:03 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-03-2019 03:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  From Lev Parnas' attorney:

What is any of that supposed to "prove"?

They talked? And?

Likely about their yoga schedules and grandkids.


Funny, which deep-stater leaked all that?

They were likely planning a wedding I'm sure.

But no, sorry, these weren't leaks. This came from documents released to congress in their impeachment probe IIRC.

This has been known for a while. These Ukrainians were pointing them around to who was doing what in the Ukraine. They were a conduit and now they are targets. Who knows how valuable they actually were. Bet they say anything at this point to stay alive.