What was wild speculation? We know he specifically asked a foreign government to investigate his biggest political rival. The House has the texts from the diplomats where quid pro quo was discussed. Ghoulini himself talked about being in the Ukrain.
And other than Trump and henchman making accusations while blocking testimony where's the evidence on Biden?
Here is the Ukrainian diplomat that Trump got rid of... CNN
Apparently the two Guilliani associates that were just arrested wanted her out because she actually wasn't corrupt. The same two that were funneling foreign money to republican campaigns. m
What was wild speculation? We know he specifically asked a foreign government to investigate his biggest political rival. The House has the texts from the diplomats where quid pro quo was discussed. Ghoulini himself talked about being in the Ukrain.
And other than Trump and henchman making accusations while blocking testimony where's the evidence on Biden?
Heads of state discuss such issues every day. There is no indication that Trump was in any way intimidating Zelenskyy. As the transcribed phone conversation, and Zelenskyy himself in multiple interviews, makes clear.
There is FAR more overt evidence of intimidation of Ukranian officials by Joseph Biden, and by his son Hunter Biden. And by Senators Menedez, Durbin, and Leahy.
But of course, you don't even want to discuss that.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
You're trying to say it's perfectly normal for a President to ask another foreign country to specifically investigate his political rivals? I sincerely doubt you really feel that way. If that had been Obama how would you feel about that phone call? As for Biden, I see Trump making accusations but what is the evidence to back up his "guilty till proven innocent " attacks? This is done while he's trying to block testimony and records on his own handling of Ukraine.
Here is the Ukrainian diplomat that Trump got rid of... CNN
Apparently the two Guilliani associates that were just arrested wanted her out because she actually wasn't corrupt. The same two that were funneling foreign money to republican campaigns. m
1) There is no wrongdoing in President Trump replacing any ambassador, at any time, as the president sees fit, that is any president's discretionary decision, to appoint who he thinks best represents U.S. national interests.
2) Rep. Devin Nunes, among others, has said there were plenty of complaints about Yovanovich, * that she was an Obama appointee, * that she was deeply invested in Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 election, * that she had pressured Ukranian officials not to investigate or prosecute Soros-aligned groups in Ukraine (see the Glenn Beck video above). * That Yovanovicch had made disparaging remarks about Trump to many staffers within the embassy and state department. * That Yovanovich had made disparaging remarks about Trump to Ukranian officials. * That Yovanovich was hostile toward the incoming Zelenskyy administration in Ukraine, and this was even mentioned the Trump/Zelenskyy de-classified phone call, brought to Zelenskyy's attention by many of his officials.
As usual, the CNN story is just more anti-Trump partisan liberal Newspeak smear.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Nunes is just a Trump toady though. And while she served under Obama she had a long career under republicans too. Trump of course can replace diplomats but this looks like it was because she did fight corruption. You might want to read up on those Guilliani associates that were just arrested for funneling foreign money into GOP campaigns. And while Trump claims he doesn't know them, they say they knew him. If he has the facts on his side why is he trying to block them?
I would add that part of what is being reported is that Guilliani's associates and himself were circulating the stuff about the diplomat that was recalled.
Nunes is just a Trump toady though. And while she served under Obama she had a long career under republicans too. Trump of course can replace diplomats but this looks like it was because she did fight corruption. You might want to read up on those Guilliani associates that were just arrested for funneling foreign money into GOP campaigns. And while Trump claims he doesn't know them, they say they knew him. If he has the facts on his side why is he trying to block them?
Rep. Devin Nunez is a United States congessman, and has almost singlehandedly unearthed much of what we know about the Russia Hoax coup by high level agents in the FBI, DOJ, CIA and NSA. Far from a "toady", he has put himself at risk politically for the country, and revealed factually provable conspiracy by Democrat/Deep State elements to try and sabotage/slander/destroy the 2016 Trump campaign, and several more pseudo-legal coups against Trump to cripple or remove him as president.
Nunez had false charges against him as House committee chair in 2018, and after about 9 months was completely exonerated of the slanders. Accusations that were quite clearly intended to delay investigation of FBI and DOJ crimes and deceit, also delaying until Democrats won in the mid-term, and Nunez no longer was (ceasing to be with the majority party after 2018) Nunez after the 2018 election no longer had the powers once exonerated, no longer the House majority party, to fully pursue investigation.
If it were not for Nunez, we would know virtually nothing of these abuses of power by the heads of federal agencies. A conspiracy that exceeds even Watergate in its bid to seize power and remove an elected president. Beyond Trump, they are still ruining the lives and bankrupting innocent men like Roger Stone, Jerome Corsi, Michael Flynn, Michael Caputo, Carter Page and George Pappadapoulos, among others. FBI and DOJ manufacturing false evidence to obtain FISA warrants, planted evidence, entrapping innocent men, extorting confessions, and witholding exculpatory evidence.
And no, it doesn't look like Yovanovich was fighting corruption. She ordered Ukranian officials not to investigate several Democrat allies. Multiple people both in the State Department and in the the Ukranian government say she was partisanly for Obama, made many comments hostile to Trump, comments hostile toward Zelensky and his government, and not a trustworthy ambassador.
If Trump was "trying to hide something" why did he fully disclose his phone call transcripted conversation with Zelenskyy? A move absolutely unprecedented in presidential history. A move that makes any foreign leader reluctant to speak candidly with ANY future U.S. president, knowing their words can be made public despite any assurances of privacy. And even that is not enough, and nothing ever will be, for the lying Democrats. The goal of the treasonous Democrats is to destroy Trump any way they can, even if it undermines and destroys the nation itself.
You ignore the incredible number of times the lying partisan media has declared --almost every week!-- a new scandal, assuring us this time we have the evidence against Trump, this time he'll beimpeached, each time the story has fallen apart and proven to be falsified evidence by the Democrats, by deep state officials, by the liberal media, or falsified in collaboration by all three.
By the weirdest of coincidences, all this scandal has been unleashed to incriminate Giulinani and to incriminate Barr, just when they were on the brink of concluding their investigations and going public with their evidence. Just by the oddest coincidence. The motive is clear: the Democrats, Deep State and lying Newspeak liberal media are trying to smear the messengers, in advance of their releasing the evidence. Or as Giuliani has said in the last few days, the Dems and media are "trying to kill the messenger".
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff recruited two former National Security Council aides who worked alongside the CIA whistleblower at the NSC during the Obama and Trump administrations, the Washington Examiner has learned.
Abigail Grace, who worked at the NSC until 2018, was hired in February, while Sean Misko, an NSC aide until 2017, joined Schiff's committee staff in August, the same month the whistleblower submitted his complaint.
The whistleblower was an NSC official who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and who has expertise in Ukraine, the Washington Examiner has reported.
A career CIA analyst with Ukraine expertise, the whistleblower aired his concerns about a phone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to a House Intelligence Committee aide on Schiff’s staff. He had previously informed the CIA’s legal counsel's office.
Schiff initially denied he knew anything about the complaint before it was filed, stating on Sep. 17: “We have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to."
But it later emerged that a member of his staff had spoken to the whistleblower before his complaint was submitted on Aug. 12. The Washington Post concluded that Schiff "clearly made a statement that was false."
Grace, 36, was hired to help Schiff’s committee investigate the Trump White House. That month, Trump accused Schiff of "stealing people who work at White House." Grace worked at the NSC from 2016 to 2018 in U.S.-China relations and then briefly at the Center for a New American Security think tank, which was founded by two former senior Obama administration officials.
A Schiff aide commented in February: "We have hired staff for a variety of positions, including the committee's oversight work and its investigation. Although none of our staff has come directly from the White House, we have hired people with prior experience on the National Security Council staff for oversight of the agencies, and will continue to do so at our discretion." Schiff himself said, "If the president is worried about our hiring any former administration people, maybe he should work on being a better employer."
Misko, 37, worked in the Obama administration as a member of the secretary of state’s policy planning staff under deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, who became Hillary Clinton's top foreign policy official during her 2016 presidential campaign. In 2015, Misko was the director for the Gulf states at the NSC, remaining there into the Trump administration’s first year.
A source familiar with Grace's work at the NSC told the Washington Examiner, “Abby Grace had access to executive privilege information, and she has a duty not to disclose that information. She is not authorized to reveal that information.”
The same source said that Misko had not been trusted by Trump appointees. "There were a few times where documents had been signed off for final editing before they go to the national security adviser for signature," the source said. "And he actually went in and made changes after those changes were already finished. So he basically tried to insert, without his boss' approval.
"There were meetings in which he protested very heavily, and next thing you know, there's an article in the paper about the contents of that meeting."
Misko often clashed with other NSC personnel at meetings, another source said. Both Grace and Misko were close to Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster, Trump's national security adviser from Feb. 2017 until May 2018.
Misko was a CNAS fellow in 2014. Misko's name surfaced in the Hillary Clinton email controversy when he worked in the State Department during the Obama administration.
In a Dec. 1, 2009, email released by Judicial Watch, Clinton adviser Huma Abedin sent classified information regarding foreign military contributions to the Afghanistan war effort to her private email account. That email originated with Misko, who wrote to Sullivan that he initially “accidentally” sent it on the “high side” (secure) but was sending the email again.
The intelligence committee did not respond to a request for comment.
Well, well, well... this thing just gets more incestuous and staged-looking every day. Just like every other attempted exposure "bombshell" story about President Trump. It's a lie, it's a sham, a manufactured conspiracy, a palace coup.
And the puppet-masters of this staged coup should faces charges and spend some time in pound-me-in-the-ass federal prison.
As should Comey, McCabe, Brennan, Strzok, Page, James Baker, John Brennan, James Clapper and the other willing accomplices in the previous and ongoing coup attempts.
Because only actual punishment will make this kind of infuriating abuse of power finally be deterred and stopped.
Likewise Christine Blasey-Ford, Deborah Ramirez and Kavanaugh's other 2 perjuring/lying accusers. Likewise Koskinin, Lois Lerner and her hand-picked inner circle of KGB-wannabees at the IRS.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
The problem for Trump is the transcript he released backs up what the whistleblower was saying. It's not okay for any President to ask another country to try to dig up dirt on a political rival. There isn't a question that Trump misused his office in that way. His corruption was on full display. And with the two Rudy/Trump thugs illegally running around funneling money into GOP campaigns and also connected to the Ukrain scandal I don't think the GOP can just blindly and obediently follow and protect him without paying a price at election time.
The problem for Trump is the transcript he released backs up what the whistleblower was saying. It's not okay for any President to ask another country to try to dig up dirt on a political rival. There isn't a question that Trump misused his office in that way. His corruption was on full display. And with the two Rudy/Trump thugs illegally running around funneling money into GOP campaigns and also connected to the Ukrain scandal I don't think the GOP can just blindly and obediently follow and protect him without paying a price at election time.
No, it doesn't support what the "whistleblower"/CIA-leaker-rat was alleging.
The transcript shows there was no intimidation, no coercion by Trump. Zelensky in multiple on-camera interviews since has made clear it was a very friendly call, as the transcribed de-classified phone call also confirms. At no time in the call did Trump intimidate or threaten Zelenskyy. While Trump used the term "hey, do me a favor..." (as he has used on many people in a non-threatening way, even in multiple rallies to his audience of supporters), at no time was there a threat connected. To any neutral observer, the call was very friendly. To Zelenskyy himself, it was friendly.
The one bit that Democrats cling to is that planned aid to Ukraine was held up, but was never discussed in the call between Trump and Zelenskyy, and thus was never used as a threat. Zelenskyy has independently of that conversation said that he was completely unaware the U.S. aid to Ukraine was delayed, and only learned of it 30 days after the Trump/Zelenskyy phone call, at which point the aid had already resumed. It was witheld to be screened for potential corruption, not as a threat, completely independent of Trump and Zelenskyy's phone call.
The 'whistleblower"/CIA-leaker-rat's allegations are highly suspect for multiple reasons: * The leaker rules were changed by the CIA just months before his "whistleblower" report was made. * No one in the CIA is willing to to take credit for precisely when the whistleblower report form was changed, or who authorized the change, but it had to ultimately be approved by director Gina Haspel. * Gina Haspel is the protege of John Brennan, and Brennan is the most vocal and bitter of Trump's attackers, that he does pretty much daily as a "consultant" pundit from anti-Trump propaganda headquarters CNN. * Several of Gina Haspel's closest assistants were assistants to John Brennan, and one of them came out of retirement to be her assistant. * The "Russia collusion hoax" coup is believed to have originated from Brennan, and Gina Haspel is Brennan's chosen successor at the CIA. * The CIA is where the "Russia collusion" narrative was created, and now this newest "whistleblower" coup again originates from a CIA agent, and those "additional whistleblowers" are likely other CIA co-workers. Another CIA agent interviewed calls this by the intelligence community propaganda technique term "looping", where you don't have new information, you just allege new sources, but they are in fact part of the original whistleblower's report. A standard CIA psy-ops tactic. Which by the way, is what was done with the evidence presented for the FISA warrants submitted to FISA Court judges on Carter Page, four times, where Christopher Steele's "Russia dossier" was presented as evidence, with two articles that allegedly backed it up, but were in fact sourced from and just repeating what was in the Russia Dossier. * The disproven "Russia Collusion" hoax originated from the CIA/ FBI/ DNI intelligence community, and this latest "whistleblower" report originates from the same intelligence community and involves many of the same players.
You and other Democrats are so desperate to create any rationalization to impeach Trump that you are willing to believe anything alleged about Trump, no matter how suspicious, no matter how disproven. But regardless, it's a scam. You're just too ideologically blind to see it.
In the concluding 10 minutes of Lou Dobbs' program (Friday, Oct 11 2019) Dobbs interviews Pulitzer-winning journalist John Solomon,who details the multiple verifiable complaints about removed ambassador and Democrat partisan Maria Yovanovich over a period of months, that infinitely justify her removal and remove any doubt she is a Democrat/Soros/anti-Trump partisan.
The problem for Trump is the transcript he released backs up what the whistleblower was saying. It's not okay for any President to ask another country to try to dig up dirt on a political rival. There isn't a question that Trump misused his office in that way. His corruption was on full display. And with the two Rudy/Trump thugs illegally running around funneling money into GOP campaigns and also connected to the Ukrain scandal I don't think the GOP can just blindly and obediently follow and protect him without paying a price at election time.
No, it doesn't support what the "whistleblower"/CIA-leaker-rat was alleging.
The transcript shows there was no intimidation, no coercion by Trump. Zelensky in multiple on-camera interviews since has made clear it was a very friendly call, as the transcribed de-classified phone call also confirms. At no time in the call did Trump intimidate or threaten Zelenskyy. While Trump used the term "hey, do me a favor..." (as he has used on many people in a non-threatening way, even in multiple rallies to his audience of supporters), at no time was there a threat connected. To any neutral observer, the call was very friendly. To Zelenskyy himself, it was friendly.
The one bit that Democrats cling to is that planned aid to Ukraine was held up, but was never discussed in the call between Trump and Zelenskyy, and thus was never used as a threat. Zelenskyy has independently of that conversation said that he was completely unaware the U.S. aid to Ukraine was delayed, and only learned of it 30 days after the Trump/Zelenskyy phone call, at which point the aid had already resumed. It was witheld to be screened for potential corruption, not as a threat, completely independent of Trump and Zelenskyy's phone call.
The 'whistleblower"/CIA-leaker-rat's allegations are highly suspect for multiple reasons: * The leaker rules were changed by the CIA just months before his "whistleblower" report was made. * No one in the CIA is willing to to take credit for precisely when the whistleblower report form was changed, or who authorized the change, but it had to ultimately be approved by director Gina Haspel. * Gina Haspel is the protege of John Brennan, and Brennan is the most vocal and bitter of Trump's attackers, that he does pretty much daily as a "consultant" pundit from anti-Trump propaganda headquarters CNN. * Several of Gina Haspel's closest assistants were assistants to John Brennan, and one of them came out of retirement to be her assistant. * The "Russia collusion hoax" coup is believed to have originated from Brennan, and Gina Haspel is Brennan's chosen successor at the CIA. * The CIA is where the "Russia collusion" narrative was created, and now this newest "whistleblower" coup again originates from a CIA agent, and those "additional whistleblowers" are likely other CIA co-workers. Another CIA agent interviewed calls this by the intelligence community propaganda technique term "looping", where you don't have new information, you just allege new sources, but they are in fact part of the original whistleblower's report. A standard CIA psy-ops tactic. Which by the way, is what was done with the evidence presented for the FISA warrants submitted to FISA Court judges on Carter Page, four times, where Christopher Steele's "Russia dossier" was presented as evidence, with two articles that allegedly backed it up, but were in fact sourced from and just repeating what was in the Russia Dossier. * The disproven "Russia Collusion" hoax originated from the CIA/ FBI/ DNI intelligence community, and this latest "whistleblower" report originates from the same intelligence community and involves many of the same players.
You and other Democrats are so desperate to create any rationalization to impeach Trump that you are willing to believe anything alleged about Trump, no matter how suspicious, no matter how disproven. But regardless, it's a scam. You're just too ideologically blind to see it.
I don't think it's a scam but you keep skipping over the fact that regardless of anything else we know Trump asked a foreign government to investigate his biggest political rival. That corrupt act in itself is worthy of impeachment. I keep thinking if parties were reversed and a democratic president did that I still wouldn't be okay with that. Would you?
After the failure of the Mueller investigation to depose President Donald Trump, in September 2019 Democrats manufactured evidence to begin an "impeachment inquiry". Under new House Rules adopted by Democrats in December 2018, Republicans are excluded from questioning witnesses while Articles of Impeachment are being drafted.
The timing of the impeachment inquiry was to blunt information coming out regarding the fraudulent counterintelligence investigation opened up on the 2016 Trump campaign, and the Russia collusion hoax perpetrated by the Obama intelligence community in collusion with the Democratic National Committee, the 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign, foreign governments and intelligence agencies to meddle in American media, public opinion, sway elections and attack American democracy. [ Timing planned to eclipse and discredit the reports coming out on these DOJ, FBI, CIA, DNI and FISA court abuses, about to be exposed in reports by attorney general William Barr, U.S. attorney John Durham, and inspector general Horowitz that will thoroughly discredit the investigations of Trump. This "Deep State 2.0" is designed to overwhelm and mask the exposures of those investigations.]
Candidate Donald Trump had questioned why the United States was shouldering the burden of European Union defense costs while Europeans enjoyed free healthcare and Americans did not, and why China was taking over $500 billion in American wealth out of the country annually by trade deficits while Americans' communities were being destroyed.[3] The military industrial complex and corporate globalists considered Trump a threat to their security.
The alleged "whistleblower" filed a questionable hearsay complaint in an area outside the statutory purview of the intelligence community inspector general. The same day, August 12, 2019, the Congressional Research Service (CRS), a supposedly "non-partisan" research service that provides legal analysis to committees and Members of both houses, issued an updated version of its report, The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives.[4] "Coincidentally," six weeks later the CRS again issued a faulty report, using no statutory citations, informing Members that hearsay evidence was acceptable under the Whistleblower Act just two days before the alleged "whistleblower" complaint was received by House Intelligence Committee.
The timing of the impeachment inquiry happened because of Trump asking a foreign country to investigate his biggest political rival. An act of corruption that I don't see Trump supporters defending or even acknowledging.
How is that different from the what the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign (Christopher Steele/Fusion GPS/Ukraine/direct agents of Russian intelligence), and what Democrat senators Leahy, Durbin and Menendez did, that I linked above? The only Trump supporters who are voicing doubts are the Establishment/never-Trumpers in the GOP who have previously never missed a similar opportunity to attack Trump. Trump still has an unprecedented 95% support from his Republican base, who are not buying it, and are not leaving Trump.
As Kim Strassell of the Wall Street Journal said, there is nothing Democrats are accusing Trump of, that the Democrats themselves have not done, and egregiously more so.
Mark Levin in his Sunday night program, perfectly sums up the Democrat lies and hypocrisy of the Democrat leadership, and the unconstitutional coup they are unleashing on the country and their elected president:
Levin uses their own written statements and the written law to incriminate them and expose their lawlessness.
I'm constantly amazed that anyone could watch an hour of CNN, and then watch an hour of programs like this on Fox News, and not realize that CNN is lying to them.
How is that different from the what the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign (Christopher Steele/Fusion GPS/Ukraine/direct agents of Russian intelligence), and what Democrat senators Leahy, Durbin and Menendez did, that I linked above? The only Trump supporters who are voicing doubts are the Establishment/never-Trumpers in the GOP who have previously never missed a similar opportunity to attack Trump. Trump still has an unprecedented 95% support from his Republican base, who are not buying it, and are not leaving Trump.
As Kim Strassell of the Wall Street Journal said, there is nothing Democrats are accusing Trump of, that the Democrats themselves have not done, and egregiously more so.
That's bullshit. Hiring somebody to dig up dirt is not the same thing as using the office of the presidency to ask foreign countries to investigate your biggest political rivals. That is corruption in its purest form. But because it's Trump you can't even call it for what it is. And I think there's more to it than Trump doing that given the lengths he's trying to obstruct the inquiry.
Mark Levin in his Sunday night program, perfectly sums up the Democrat lies and hypocrisy of the Democrat leadership, and the unconstitutional coup they are unleashing on the country and their elected president:
Levin uses their own written statements and the written law to incriminate them and expose their lawlessness.
I'm constantly amazed that anyone could watch an hour of CNN, and then watch an hour of programs like this on Fox News, and not realize that CNN is lying to them.
Is it lawful to reject subpoenas? And what version of the constitution doesn't have impeachment in it. Are lies like fake news? If you don't like it than it's not true?
Congress didn't just get the right to subpoena people though. You're correct Trump is making those arguments but the house still has the right to subpoena and a duty of oversight. I get where the delaying tactic might be preferable for Trump but it's not really a great legal argument he's making.
How is that different from the what the DNC, the Hillary Clinton campaign (Christopher Steele/Fusion GPS/Ukraine/direct agents of Russian intelligence), and what Democrat senators Leahy, Durbin and Menendez did, that I linked above? The only Trump supporters who are voicing doubts are the Establishment/never-Trumpers in the GOP who have previously never missed a similar opportunity to attack Trump. Trump still has an unprecedented 95% support from his Republican base, who are not buying it, and are not leaving Trump.
As Kim Strassell of the Wall Street Journal said, there is nothing Democrats are accusing Trump of, that the Democrats themselves have not done, and egregiously more so.
That's bullshit. Hiring somebody to dig up dirt is not the same thing as using the office of the presidency to ask foreign countries to investigate your biggest political rivals. That is corruption in its purest form. But because it's Trump you can't even call it for what it is. And I think there's more to it than Trump doing that given the lengths he's trying to obstruct the inquiry.
That is your Democrat side's spin of it, whose talking points you are repeating.
But is's laughable to say, because the only way you can make the argument is by ignoring that the DNC, and Hillary Clinton campaign and Obama officials directly spent paid million to Russian intelligence officials through Fusion GPS and a British MI-6 foreign agent, Christopher Steele. And further through Hillary Clinton partisans (James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Bruce Ohr, Nellie Ohr, Rod Rosenstein) backchannelled that Russian dirt propaganda to investigate Hillary Clinton's biggest political rival and to submit perjury false information for FISA warrants against Trump officials ! HOW DO YOU GET AROUND THAT ?!?
Rudy Giuliani can be argued to be gathering information independently as the president's personal attorney, to exonerate his client, the president, with exculpatory evidence that has not otherwise been made available, by pro-Hillary/DNC forces in the DOJ and FBI, who haave suppreseed it, even when the Ukranian government offered it, REPEATEDLY! So Giuliani was going directly to the Ukranians to bypaass that Deep State filter at FBI and DOJ.
And Trump's phone call (fully disclosed, in an unprecedented level of presidential openess) makes that clear: that what your government offerred us before, we would like you to give us again, there is new management at DOJ (William Barr) and this time we will not ignore it, as partisan Deep State obstructionists have in the past. Only by Democrat selective disclusure, half-truths and outright lies (Rep. Adam Schiff being the poster-boy for that!) Do Giuliani and Trump's actions take on a sinister appearance.
As opposed to the obvious sinister intent of Joseph Biden, Hunter Biden, Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele, Nellie Ohr, Bruce Ohr, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and the threatening letter to Ukraine by Democrat Senators Leahy, Durbin and Menendez to the Ukranian government extorting dirt on Trump to help the Hillary Clinton campaaign! On and on, on the Democrat side. And these people, you don't even want investigated. Just amazing, the hypocrisy and selective enforcement you advocate.
Congress didn't just get the right to subpoena people though. You're correct Trump is making those arguments but the house still has the right to subpoena and a duty of oversight. I get where the delaying tactic might be preferable for Trump but it's not really a great legal argument he's making.
You apparently didn't watch the Mark Levin program I linked above. He cited the written statements, and cited the written law, and the written past precedents in the impeachment proceedings of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
Past impeachment procedure has always been for the 15-member Judiciary Committee to vote for going forward with impeachment, and then impeachment to be voted on by the full 435 members of the House. That is not what is occurring now.
Rep. Adam Schiff as judiciary chair, is locking up all authority to investigate in the Judiciary committee. And not even the entire 15-member judiciary committee, he is only allowing the Democrat members to participate. Yesterday, Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), a judiciart committe member, attempted to just sit in the room and listen to witness proceedings, AND WAS FORCED TO LEAVE! So there is not equal access to facts and witness deposition, Republicans are working blind, with no information.
Unlike the previous impeachments, the Democrats have set up the rules so only they can call witnesses, only they can ask questions, all BEHIND CLOSED DOORS so they can completely control the information, and they leak out whatever gives the appearance of supporting their case against Trump. Trump and the Republicans are not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, not allowed to ask questions or present any exculpatory evidence that would exonerate President Trump or his officials. It's a Soviet-style kangaroo court.
In three past impeachments, as Mark Levin cites and quotes, the ruling party bent over backward to present a joint bipartisan impeachment effort, where both sides had the same access to subpoena power and witnesses.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
No offense but I just don't view videos like that from either side. I have read that argument from other republicans though. Basically it boils down to trying to say that a change in procedure somehow voids whatever you don't want. That of course doesn't hold true for what you do. For example the GOP senate changing the rules to load the Supreme Court with who they wanted. I suspect you do feel those seats are illegitimate. The republicans on those committees are allowed to question witnesses btw. It's also not a new rule that non committee members can just sit in on anything they want. The House according to the Constitution has the power to impeach. It does not go into great detail on how that happens. So far the democrats have not done anything unconstitutional in the process. Trump is just flat out lying when he says that. Lying and trying to get foreign countries to investigate his political rivals while trying to block testimony. You don't seem to have a problem with some really major ethical lapses there!
If the House votes to impeach it than goes to the Senate for trial. Trump has his bitches ready so I think that's going to be truly your soviet style kangaroo court. Moscow Mitch has already teased about it. However America is watching and right now support for impeachment and removal is around or above fifty percent so they might actually have to do a real trial.
Btw I've read the rough transcript. Trump doesn't say anything about resending information. It's clear what he's asking for as a favor. I've also been reading testimonies that re-enforce what is already clear in the transcript. He has been clearing out those that won't bend to his corruption, people that were loyal to the this country. What a truly awful corrupt man.
No offense but I just don't view videos like that from either side. I have read that argument from other republicans though. Basically it boils down to trying to say that a change in procedure somehow voids whatever you don't want.
As I just said above: Republicans are not allowed to either subpoena or call witnesses, not allowed to cross-examine witnesses, NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO ATTEND AND HEAR the closed door testimony, NOT EVEN ALLOWED (Rep. Matt Gaetz tried, and was FORCED TO LEAVE THE HEARINGS) TO ATTEND AND HEAR THE TESTIMONY TO HEAR WHAT WAS SAID, except for what Democrats choose to leak to the media.
In what parallel alternate universe are those fair proceedings with an interest in the truth?
How caan I have a reasonable discussion with you if you refuse to listen to the facts? You label any counter-argument as "videos like that" from the other side that you won't watch? How is it possible to have a debate of the facts if you won't listen to both sides? Those are the facts that you choose not to hear!
Originally Posted By: M E M
That of course doesn't hold true for what you do. For example the GOP senate changing the rules to load the Supreme Court with who they wanted. I suspect you do feel those seats are illegitimate.
I don't know what you're referring to. I've listened to a lot of Democrat talking points, but I've never heard that alleged. I'm guessing what you mean, is this about witholding the Supreme Court nomination until after the 2016 election, not confirming Merrick Garland, and instead confirming Neil Gorsuch once Trump was inaugurated? Because that was the Republicans upholding the same standard that Democrats previously established, and far from "stacking the court". And Gorsuch and Garland ruled the same in over 90% of cases, so I fail to see how that was a radical shift.
Originally Posted By: M E M
The republicans on those committees are allowed to question witnesses btw.
No, they're not. As I said, Rep. Matt Gaetz was not even permitted to attend the hearings, let alone ask questions, in the Democrats' kangaroo court.
Originally Posted By: M E M
It's also not a new rule that non committee members can just sit in on anything they want.
Gaetz is a member of the 15 member Judiciary Committee, he isn't just a House member sittin in on anything they want.
Originally Posted By: M E M
The House according to the Constitution has the power to impeach. It does not go into great detail on how that happens. So far the democrats have not done anything unconstitutional in the process. Trump is just flat out lying when he says that. Lying and trying to get foreign countries to investigate his political rivals while trying to block testimony. You don't seem to have a problem with some really major ethical lapses there!
The Democrats are keeping all decisions bottled up in THEIR HALF of the Judiciary Committee, not even sharing the same access to the facts with the Republicans on the committee, let alone the powers to subpoena, call witnesses, cross examine them, or present exculpatory evidence. This standard would be unconstitutional if any U.S. citizen were investigated and tried in this way, it certainly is not acceptable to do so with the President of the United States.
Originally Posted By: M E M
If the House votes to impeach it than goes to the Senate for trial.
That's horseshit. They are slanting the evidence to try the president in the court of public opinion, suppressing the true facts from even being presented. They are indefinitely bombarding the president with one-sided propaganda in an attempt to destroy Trump in the polls and erode his support. They are tainting public opinion, so that at the point it is allowed to go to the full 435 members of the House, if and when the true facts are allowed to be presented, the public will either not hear them or not believe them.
Originally Posted By: M E M
Trump has his bitches ready so I think that's going to be truly your soviet style kangaroo court. Moscow Mitch has already teased about it. However America is watching and right now support for impeachment and removal is around or above fifty percent so they might actually have to do a real trial.
"Bitches".... "Moscow Mitch"...
That is some truly vile rhetoric from you. Increased support for impeachment, just like the "Moscow Mitch" label, is based on a twisted version of the true facts, brewed by malicious House Democrats, and a compliant liberal media who all voted for Hillary and are still doing their damnedest to reverse the 2016 election.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Gaetz isn't on any of the 3 committees conducting the impeachment inquiry. That isn't a new rule. The republicans on that committee can ask questions. It's true they don't have equal control but this isn't the trial. That will happen in the GOP controlled senate. And given the performances of many of them I'm being kind by referring to them as Trump's bitches. There isn't even a pretense of objectivity among the likes of Lindsey Graham.
In other news Mulvaney admits Trump withheld aid to Ukrain to pressure them for an investigation. Apparently he didn't realize he admitted that it was a quid pro quo.
Oh and the G7 meeting will be held at a Trump property and no we don't get to see any documents on the decision making behind choosing his own property.
...yes, Rep. MAtt Gaetz is on the judiciary committee.
Again, your side is not even attempting to pursue a bipartisan and impartial Senate investigation. There is a vindictive rush to impeachment, despite the evidence to the contrary, for purely political reasons, because Democrats see this abuse of power and the only "Hail Mary" way to possibly prevent Trump's re-election.
And the Judiciary committee wasn't one of the three committees conducting the inquiry.
I think if positions were reversed you would be more than fine with impeaching a democrat for abusing their office like Trump has in this situation. Nor do I see how this could be a Hail Mary type thing considering the GOP controls the Senate. Removal will require bipartisan support.
And the Judiciary committee wasn't one of the three committees conducting the inquiry.
I think if positions were reversed you would be more than fine with impeaching a democrat for abusing their office like Trump has in this situation. Nor do I see how this could be a Hail Mary type thing considering the GOP controls the Senate. Removal will require bipartisan support.
That might be true, if the person in the reverse position (Republican or Democrat) had done ANYHING WRONG!
It's infuriating that your side: 1) completely bypasses any pretense of fairness and impartiality as they rig the investigation and exclude any openness or mutual sharing of facts to allow for Trump's defense.
and 2) That your side hypocritially wants to impeach Trump on the slightest whiff of a scandal, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to >>>>>FAR<<<<< more egregious abuse of power by Obama, Hillary, Biden, son Hunter, Menendez, Leahy, Durbin, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Lois Lerner, Koskinin, on and on!
It truly scares me that your party could ever egain regain power. It would be a complete marginalization of Republicans, banning them from any platform in news media or social media, exclusion from employment, and purge of all dissenting thought, even Democrat thought, that doesn't follow the party line. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard about that one, or Nicholas Sandmann, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Pam Bondi, or the hundreds of attackss on Republicans for thingsa as simple as wearing a MAGA hat. Control of all three branches would bring about a Democrat-led purge in the U.S. akin to the Great Terror of the French Revolution.
It is not the with the slightest exagerration that I refer to the Democrats as the Bolshevik party. Intimidation, violence, slander, whatever serves the Revolution. Mob rule, authoritarian and vindictive use of power. The complete abandonment of rule of law.
What occurred for 8 years under Obama (the IRS targeting conservatives, "Fast and Furious" running guns by ATF to Mexican drug cartels, illegal FISA warrants on the Trump campaign...), and that Trump has attempted to turn away from, to restore rule of law and trust in government.
Oh and the G7 meeting will be held at a Trump property and no we don't get to see any documents on the decision making behind choosing his own property.
Which the Trump administration is holding at cost, NOT for profit. A nice selective omission (i.e., lie) on your part.
As opposed to Joseph Biden and son Hunter Biden, who enriched themselves for tens of millions, through blackmail and corrupt use of power.
Liberals who bemoan discrimination, intolerance, restraint of Constitutional freedoms, and promotion of hatred toward various abberant minorities, have absolutely no problem with discriminating against, being intolerant of, restricting Constitutional freedoms of, and directing hate-filled scapegoat rhetoric against conservatives.
EXACTLY what they accuse Republicans/conservatives of doing, is EXACTLY what liberals/Democrats do themselves, to those who oppose their beliefs.
Gaetz isn't on any of the 3 committees conducting the impeachment inquiry. That isn't a new rule. The republicans on that committee can ask questions. It's true they don't have equal control but this isn't the trial. That will happen in the GOP controlled senate. And given the performances of many of them I'm being kind by referring to them as Trump's bitches. There isn't even a pretense of objectivity among the likes of Lindsey Graham.
In other news Mulvaney admits Trump withheld aid to Ukrain to pressure them for an investigation. Apparently he didn't realize he admitted that it was a quid pro quo.
A Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee was ejected from a closed-door impeachment hearing.
Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida tried to enter a hearing Monday in which lawmakers from three different committees are interviewing President Trump’s former top aide on Russia, Fiona Hill.
Gaetz said he believed he should be allowed to attend the hearing because impeachment inquiries traditionally are handled by the House Judiciary Committee, and he serves on that panel.
But the House parliamentarian told Gaetz he is not allowed to attend the hearing because he does not sit on either the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, or Oversight panels, which are the official committees conducting the impeachment inquiry.
"Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler claimed to have begun the impeachment inquiry weeks ago," Gaetz said on Twitter after leaving the hearing room. "Now, his own Judiciary members aren’t even allowed to participate in it. And yes - my constituents want me actively involved in stopping the #KangarooCourtCoup run by Shifty Schiff."
Republicans and Trump have criticized the impeachment inquiry for failing to follow precedent, which includes a House vote, referral to the Judiciary Committee, and bipartisan agreement on rules for the inquiry.
Gaetz has called for an end to the impeachment inquiry.
In another interview I can't find with Laura Ingraham on Oct 15 or 16th, Eric Trump says that his family are the first ones who have lost money once entering public service, that they put all their assets in blind trusts run by others, and have lost hundeds of millions in potential deals. And that not only Trump, but also Ivanka, Jared Kushner and Eric have all not accepted any salary while in public service. Trump annually gives away his presidential salary to a charity every year. I was aware Trump did this, I was not aware the other Trumps do this as well. And yet doing this, they are demonized by Dams.
Name me ONE Democrat, one other political leader period, who doesn't even take a salary for their public office.
And the Judiciary committee wasn't one of the three committees conducting the inquiry.
I think if positions were reversed you would be more than fine with impeaching a democrat for abusing their office like Trump has in this situation. Nor do I see how this could be a Hail Mary type thing considering the GOP controls the Senate. Removal will require bipartisan support.
That might be true, if the person in the reverse position (Republican or Democrat) had done ANYHING WRONG!
It's infuriating that your side: 1) completely bypasses any pretense of fairness and impartiality as they rig the investigation and exclude any openness or mutual sharing of facts to allow for Trump's defense.
and 2) That your side hypocritially wants to impeach Trump on the slightest whiff of a scandal, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to >>>>>FAR<<<<< more egregious abuse of power by Obama, Hillary, Biden, son Hunter, Menendez, Leahy, Durbin, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Lois Lerner, Koskinin, on and on!
It truly scares me that your party could ever egain regain power. It would be a complete marginalization of Republicans, banning them from any platform in news media or social media, exclusion from employment, and purge of all dissenting thought, even Democrat thought, that doesn't follow the party line. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard about that one, or Nicholas Sandmann, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Pam Bondi, or the hundreds of attackss on Republicans for thingsa as simple as wearing a MAGA hat. Control of all three branches would bring about a Democrat-led purge in the U.S. akin to the Great Terror of the French Revolution.
It is not the with the slightest exagerration that I refer to the Democrats as the Bolshevik party. Intimidation, violence, slander, whatever serves the Revolution. Mob rule, authoritarian and vindictive use of power. The complete abandonment of rule of law.
What occurred for 8 years under Obama (the IRS targeting conservatives, "Fast and Furious" running guns by ATF to Mexican drug cartels, illegal FISA warrants on the Trump campaign...), and that Trump has attempted to turn away from, to restore rule of law and trust in government.
There's more than a whiff of scandal here WB, I would think even you would have to admit that. Trump asked a foreign government to investigate the political rival he views as his biggest threat. Plus it looks like he had his personal lawyer running some type of shadow state department. If they have facts and testimony that actually cleared them of wrongdoing than why the effort to shut down the inquiry and lack of cooperation? And even the Trump administration passed on the IRS thing. When I read up on it I can see why. It was a fake scandal but a very good one for tax cheats as the GOP cut its funding.
Oh and the G7 meeting will be held at a Trump property and no we don't get to see any documents on the decision making behind choosing his own property.
Which the Trump administration is holding at cost, NOT for profit. A nice selective omission (i.e., lie) on your part.
As opposed to Joseph Biden and son Hunter Biden, who enriched themselves for tens of millions, through blackmail and corrupt use of power.
Honestly i wasn't trying to be deceptive WB. We don't know what "at cost" ends up being. We just had Trump here in MNand you had problems with the that number the mayor gave. Even if it was at cost though he benefits from having such an event held on his own property. And where is the evidence on the Biden's? You don't seem to require much to make accusations like that. I do get that his son was making money because of his last name but the VP didn't use his position to get him a job at the WH or bend the rules to get him security clearances to have those jobs. Nor did Biden give him jobs like solving the peace process in Israel.
In another interview I can't find with Laura Ingraham on Oct 15 or 16th, Eric Trump says that his family are the first ones who have lost money once entering public service, that they put all their assets in blind trusts run by others, and have lost hundeds of millions in potential deals. And that not only Trump, but also Ivanka, Jared Kushner and Eric have all not accepted any salary while in public service. Trump annually gives away his presidential salary to a charity every year. I was aware Trump did this, I was not aware the other Trumps do this as well. And yet doing this, they are demonized by Dams.
Name me ONE Democrat, one other political leader period, who doesn't even take a salary for their public office.
I did some googling because I thought there was criticism about Trump not putting his money into a blind trust and that looks to still be the case. He technically has it in some type of trust but it's as good as not having one and it's not a blind one. He also had to dissolve the Trump charity for their fraudulent use of it.
Oh and the G7 meeting will be held at a Trump property and no we don't get to see any documents on the decision making behind choosing his own property.
Which the Trump administration is holding at cost, NOT for profit. A nice selective omission (i.e., lie) on your part.
As opposed to Joseph Biden and son Hunter Biden, who enriched themselves for tens of millions, through blackmail and corrupt use of power.
Honestly i wasn't trying to be deceptive WB. We don't know what "at cost" ends up being. We just had Trump here in MNand you had problems with the that number the mayor gave. Even if it was at cost though he benefits from having such an event held on his own property. And where is the evidence on the Biden's? You don't seem to require much to make accusations like that. I do get that his son was making money because of his last name but the VP didn't use his position to get him a job at the WH or bend the rules to get him security clearances to have those jobs. Nor did Biden give him jobs like solving the peace process in Israel.
It's been reported nightly for roughly 3 weeks that Hunter Biden was thrown out of the navy for drug use, that he travelled with Vice President Biden (who was basically appointed the trade czar for the U.S. to Ukraine) and with no experience within days, was appointed to the boaard of energy company Burisma, for which Hunter Biden received monthly payouts ranging between $50,000 and $183,000 per month. Plus other bonuses and payouts, totalling at least $3.5 million since 2014. And that's just from Burisma. In addition, Huter Biden also travelled on Air Force Two to China, and days after secured a $1.5 billion payment from a Chinese state bank for his consulting firm to invest. Democrats lyingly say that Hunter Biden hasn't received any money from them yet, but it's well documented that when that investment reached completion, it will give Hunter Biden a payout of at least 20 million. And again, that's not even all the deals that Hunter Biden has gotten based solely on being the Vice President's son. Now granted, criminality is a difficult thing to prove in court. Bill Clinton squirmed off the hook in Whitewater and special investigation. John Edwards likewise was guilty as hell, but somehow never served a day in jail. So many others.
But I think with an overwhelming majority of Americans, Hunter Biden's dealings seem undeniably corrupt and criminal (particularly with Joe Biden bragging on video about getting the chief prosecutor investigating his son fired in 6 hours, by witholding $1 billion in U.S. funds from the Ukranian president.) Whether or not Joe Biden or Hunter Biden are ever prosecuted. At the very least it will repel Democrats from an already waning and incompetent presidential bid for Joseph Biden.
Regarding the G-7 summit at Trump's resort, he said it is undeniably the best possible facility to have the event. If Trump is doing the event at-cost, I fail to see the harm, or the profit. It was already among the most presigious of resorts, having the G-7 event there doesn't change that.
And the Judiciary committee wasn't one of the three committees conducting the inquiry.
I think if positions were reversed you would be more than fine with impeaching a democrat for abusing their office like Trump has in this situation. Nor do I see how this could be a Hail Mary type thing considering the GOP controls the Senate. Removal will require bipartisan support.
That might be true, if the person in the reverse position (Republican or Democrat) had done ANYHING WRONG!
It's infuriating that your side: 1) completely bypasses any pretense of fairness and impartiality as they rig the investigation and exclude any openness or mutual sharing of facts to allow for Trump's defense.
and 2) That your side hypocritially wants to impeach Trump on the slightest whiff of a scandal, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to >>>>>FAR<<<<< more egregious abuse of power by Obama, Hillary, Biden, son Hunter, Menendez, Leahy, Durbin, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, Page, Bruce and Nellie Ohr, Lois Lerner, Koskinin, on and on!
It truly scares me that your party could ever egain regain power. It would be a complete marginalization of Republicans, banning them from any platform in news media or social media, exclusion from employment, and purge of all dissenting thought, even Democrat thought, that doesn't follow the party line. Just ask Tulsi Gabbard about that one, or Nicholas Sandmann, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Pam Bondi, or the hundreds of attackss on Republicans for thingsa as simple as wearing a MAGA hat. Control of all three branches would bring about a Democrat-led purge in the U.S. akin to the Great Terror of the French Revolution.
It is not the with the slightest exagerration that I refer to the Democrats as the Bolshevik party. Intimidation, violence, slander, whatever serves the Revolution. Mob rule, authoritarian and vindictive use of power. The complete abandonment of rule of law.
What occurred for 8 years under Obama (the IRS targeting conservatives, "Fast and Furious" running guns by ATF to Mexican drug cartels, illegal FISA warrants on the Trump campaign...), and that Trump has attempted to turn away from, to restore rule of law and trust in government.
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
There's more than a whiff of scandal here WB, I would think even you would have to admit that. Trump asked a foreign government to investigate the political rival he views as his biggest threat. Plus it looks like he had his personal lawyer running some type of shadow state department. If they have facts and testimony that actually cleared them of wrongdoing than why the effort to shut down the inquiry and lack of cooperation? And even the Trump administration passed on the IRS thing. When I read up on it I can see why. It was a fake scandal but a very good one for tax cheats as the GOP cut its funding.
Again, that's complete horseshit. There is nothing proven by Democrats, the speculation requires a lot of reading into the facts what is not evidently there. Just because Trump said "Do me a favor..." to the Ukranian president doesn't add up to intimidation or "quid pro quo". The transcript of the call, the statements of Ukranian president Zelenskyy, the Schiff-kangaroo-court statements of the U.S. envoy and U.S. ambassador, all attest to the fact there was NOT coercion, intimidation, or "quid pro quo".
Democrats lyingly allege that Trump witheld funds to intimidate Zelenskyy to give up incriminating records about Biden, but Zelenskyy, as well as both U.S. and Ukranian officials, have ALL verified that while there was a delay in funds to Ukraine, it was for confirming there was no Ukranian corruption, and that Zelenskyy was completely unaware of the delay.
Wouldn't the purpose of hypothetical intimdation be to make the Ukranians aware of the delay in U.S. funds? There was no awareness made, in Trump's call to Zelenskyy, or through any of his officials. It's Democrats chasing windmills. it's a lie. After three years of lies by the Democrats about Trump. Every allegation proven, usually within days, to be false.
And gee, it's just the weirdest of coincidences that Hunter Biden's contracts related to his father's political position go all the way back to when Joseph Biden was a Delaware Senator. Delaware has a reputation as a very corrupt state. Biden's largest political backer there was credit card company (technically, they call themselves a bank) is/was MBNA. MBNA is now a subsidiary of Bank of America. But after huge political contributions to Joseph Biden (in exchange for billions in favors) they also employed Hunter Biden in those years as an executive vice president for over $100,000 a year.
Hunter Biden also got his position on the board of Amtrak for the same reason, his father's political influence. Now that's, some "quid pro quo" for you. If you were willing to acknowledge it. But no, apparently in your eyes, only Republicans can be corrupt or warrant investigation or prosecution.
Hunter Biden's past business dealings at home and abroad are increasingly coming under scrutiny, as the former vice president's son broke his silence in a nationally televised interview this morning -- and 12 Democratic presidential candidates are preparing to debate Tuesday evening in Ohio.
Speaking to ABC's "Good Morning America," Biden maintained he did nothing improper in serving on the board of a Ukrainian gas company but acknowledged it was "poor judgment" on his part. In his first interview since his overseas business dealings came under scrutiny, Biden said he did not discuss the board seat with his father except for one "brief exchange" that was previously reported.
Although President Trump repeatedly has hammered Hunter Biden's ties to China and Ukraine, the latest cloud of suspicion came as Republicans pointed to resurfaced 2008 reports in The New York Times and The American Spectator. The articles, written as Barack Obama and John McCain vied for the White House, found that Hunter Biden received consulting fees from the financial services company MBNA from 2001 to 2005 -- while his father, then a senator, was pushing successfully for legislation that would make it harder for consumers to file for bankruptcy protection.
The precise amount of the payments was unclear, but a company official once said Hunter Biden was receiving at least a $100,000 per year retainer, the Times reported. Hunter Biden, now 49, previously had been an executive at MBNA beginning in 1996, but the consulting fees came years after his departure from the company as a full-time employee.
Aides to then-presidential candidate Barack Obama at the time denied that any lobbying had occurred, and insisted the payments were proper.
However, that explanation was treated with skepticism. On Monday, the Trump campaign posted a contemporaneous interview in which an incredulous Tom Brokaw asked Joe Biden whether it was "inappropriate" for the then-senator to have his son "collecting money from this big credit card company while you were on the [Senate] floor protecting its interests."
Hunter Biden's previous work as an executive at MBNA from 1996 to 1998 also has raised what critics called red flags.
Rachel Mullen, a former senior personal banking officer at MBNA from 1994-2001 who later went into Republican politics, tweeted Monday that managers referred to the younger Biden as "Senator MBNA" after he was hired into a lucrative management-prep track right after he graduated from Yale Law School.
An MBNA source who previously worked at the company told Fox News on Monday that other employees heard Biden boasting that his salary was unusually high, even for the management-prep track -- which was widely seen in the company as a way to groom and pamper well-connected executive candidates with powerful family members.
The source said Biden's "Senator MBNA" nickname was not politically motivated, but rather reflected a widely held belief among managers -- who did not work directly with Biden -- that he essentially was engaged in lobbying. In a January 2008 article entitled "The Senator from MBNA," columnist Byron York recounted how then-MBNA vice chairman John Cochran paid "top dollar" for Biden's home in February 1996, just prior to his Senate re-election bid, and that "MBNA gave Cochran a lot of money—$330,000—to help with 'expenses' related to the move."
The $1.2M sale was a "pretty darned good deal for Biden," York wrote, noting that "Cochran simply paid Biden’s full asking price" even though the "house needed quite a bit of work; contractors and their trucks descended on the house for months after the purchase."
Asked how Cochran and Biden found each other for the sale, an MBNA spokesperson told York: "That’s a very personal question."
Federal election records also showed top MBNA executives apparently made a "concerted" effort to donate to Biden's campaign, York reported.
It remained unclear whether, and to what extent, the resurfaced accounts of possible misconduct by the Bidens could affect the 2020 presidential race. An ABC News interview with Hunter Biden is set to air beginning Tuesday, and the issue might come up during Tuesday night's presidential primary debate.
Under intense scrutiny from Republicans, Hunter Biden announced this past Sunday he will step down from the board of directors of a Chinese-backed private equity firm at the end of the month as part of a pledge not to work on behalf of any foreign-owned companies should his father win the presidency. At the same time, the Bidens have denied wrongdoing.
Biden revealed his plan in an Internet post written by his attorney, George Mesires, who outlined a defense of the younger Biden’s work in Ukraine and China, which has emerged as one of Trump’s chief lines of attack against Hunter’s father.
"Hunter makes the following commitment: Under a Biden Administration, Hunter will readily comply with any and all guidelines or standards a President Biden may issue to address purported conflicts of interest, or the appearance of such conflicts, including any restrictions related to overseas business interests. In any event, Hunter will agree not to serve on boards of, or work on behalf of, foreign-owned companies," Mesires wrote.
He continued: "He will continue to keep his father personally uninvolved in his business affairs, while availing himself as necessary and appropriate to the Office of the White House Counsel to help inform his application of the Biden Administration’s guidelines or standards to his business decision-making."
From late 2013 through this month, Hunter Biden has served on the board of BHR (Shanghai) Equity Investment Fund Management Company, which was "formed with the stated intent to invest Chinese capital outside of China." Mesires insisted Biden's initial role was that of an unpaid member of the board and that in October 2017, Biden "committed to invest approximately $420,000 USD to acquire a 10 percent equity position in BHR, which he still holds."
Separately, Joe Biden has acknowledged on camera that in spring 2016, when he was vice president and spearheading the Obama administration's Ukraine policy, he successfully pressured Ukraine to fire top prosecutor Viktor Shokin. At the time, Shokin was investigating Burisma Holdings — where Hunter had a lucrative role on the board despite limited relevant expertise. Shokin also was widely accused of corruption.
Critics alleged Hunter Biden, in effect, might have been selling access to his father, who had pushed Ukraine to increase its natural gas production.
"Impossible to justify $50k/month for Hunter Biden serving on a Ukrainian energy board w zero expertise unless he promised to sell access," political scientist Ian Bremmer tweeted.
How much more proof do you need?
It should also be pointed out that John Kerry's stepson was part of Hunter Biden's equity firm, and got out because of the new account with Burisma holdings, and even talked to people in his father's State Department because of his concerns about its illegality.
As I posted another article about earlier in the topic.
