We know that Hunter Biden sat on the board for Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, despite having no natural gas experience. He was being paid $50,000 a month for his "contributions" to the board (whatever those may be) while his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, was handling affairs with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration.
We know that MBNA, a Delaware-based banking company, hired Hunter straight out of law school. Then-Sen. Biden had received campaign contributions from the company during previous elections and was even working on a bill MBNA backed.
Now, it turns out that Hunter received a position on Amtrak's board of directors in 2006. His qualification? He rode trains...a lot.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, the revelation came about when Sen. Tom Carpenter (D-DE) offered the sole nomination speech for Hunter in front of the Senate Commerce Committee.
"Hunter will be an excellent addition to the Amtrak Board. He is a graduate of Georgetown and Yale. He has served as senior vice president at MBNA America and as executive director of e-commerce policy coordination at the U.S. Department of Commerce. And, five years ago, he founded a law firm here in D.C. that now represents over 100 clients, mostly nonprofit organizations and educational institutions," Carpenter said.
Here's where Hunter's real qualification come in.
"But more significantly, Hunter has spent a lot of time on Amtrak trains," Carpenter said. "Like his father, Rep. Mike Castle and myself, Hunter Biden has lived in Delaware while using Amtrak to commute to his job in Washington, D.C. You learn a lot about what works and what could work better at Amtrak by riding those trains. You also see the huge economic benefit that a region receives from having a strong passenger rail corridor – something that should be available in more of the count."
Hunter admitted it was highly unlikely that he would have received positions on any board of directors, including Burisma, if his last name wasn't Biden.
“I don’t know. I don’t know, probably not,” he said. “You know, I don’t think there’s a lot of things that would have happened in my life if my last name wasn’t Biden.”
Actually Biden just came out with some anti corruption plans that would raise the bar that Trump has lowered for his children. Yeah I get that Hunter Biden made money and got jobs because of his last name but the Trump's also have a long history of that.
And none of that doesn't change the fact that Trump asked a foreign country for the favor of investigating somebody he views as his biggest political rival. And it looks like the House is getting the testimony that backs up that there was more going on than just that phone call too. It's a little surreal that you can't see that as not being obviously corrupt but also buy into that it must not be investigated.
Actually Biden just came out with some anti corruption plans that would raise the bar that Trump has lowered for his children. Yeah I get that Hunter Biden made money and got jobs because of his last name but the Trump's also have a long history of that.
And none of that doesn't change the fact that Trump asked a foreign country for the favor of investigating somebody he views as his biggest political rival. And it looks like the House is getting the testimony that backs up that there was more going on than just that phone call too. It's a little surreal that you can't see that as not being obviously corrupt but also buy into that it must not be investigated.
Are you joking, that you buy that?!? Ohhh, now that me and my son HAVE BEEN CAUGHT making millions corruptly selling my office while I was Vice President, NOW I promise that won't happen again if I'm elected president. Honest! Scouts' honor !
Give me a frigging break.
And again, the Trumps have handed their businesses over to others to manage while they serve publicly. Eric Trump this week on Martha McCallum, and again on Laura Ingraham's program, has said that his family has lost hundreds of millions on potential deals they have forsaken while serving publicly. Ivanka Trump has closed her formerly thriving business completely.
Just amazing, the double standard you hold the Trumps to, that you don't hold Democrats to.
Several other names you should look up, insider-trading stocks and other property deals they've made millions on in conflict of interest deals while holding high office:
Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid and of course, Bill and Hillary Clinton.
Please cite where the Trumps have divested themselves from their business? I googled this just yesterday and Trump hasn't done what all other previous presidents have done in the past to divest himself from his business. And when you spend time here defending Trump's decision to have the G-7 at his own resort or pressing a foreign country to try to dig up dirt on his political rival you think those are not obvious double standards?
"The unavoidable difference is the fact that Donald Trump right now has two adult sons who are traveling the world and the country, running a business that not only they benefit from, but that the president of the United States is profiting from," Maguire said. "There is no parallel for that."
Oh and in other impeachment news Mulvaney confirmed there was a quid pro quo and told everyone to get over it. Apparently team trump thought it was all wonderful and you can now buy "get over it" tees. That was yesterday though and today Mulvaney is trying to say what he clearly said was being misinterpreted. I watched Wallace on Fox this morning and it wasn't pretty.
Please cite where the Trumps have divested themselves from their business? I googled this just yesterday and Trump hasn't done what all other previous presidents have done in the past to divest himself from his business.
President-elect Donald Trump is separating himself from his far-flung global business empire by transferring all assets into a trust and putting his two sons, Eric and Donald Jr., in charge, a Trump lawyer said on Wednesday.
Along with plans to hire an ethics adviser, Trump is taking the steps to avoid inevitable questions about a potential conflict of interest between his businesses and the office of the presidency, although his lawyer insisted he was not required to take them.
Republican Trump, who is to be sworn in on Jan. 20, has been under pressure to take these steps before he moves into the White House.
Trump operates a variety of golf resorts and hotels around the world. The lawyer, who spoke to a small group of reporters on condition of anonymity, said all profits generated at Trump‘s hotels by foreign governments will be donated to the U.S. Treasury.
Trump is to resign from all positions he holds with Trump Organization entities, and his daughter, Ivanka, is to have no further involvement with management authority in the group.
Ivanka Trump is the wife of Jared Kushner, who Trump has appointed to a senior advisory role in the White House.
The Trump Organization will not enter any new deals while Trump is president, according to the lawyer.
Since Trump sold all his stocks last year, the Trump trust is to hold only liquid assets such as cash and business operating assets, the lawyer said.
Many ethics experts had urged Trump to completely divest or set up a blind trust for his assets. The lawyer said Trump opted against these steps because it was not a realistic possibility.
Trump was aided in setting up the trust by lawyer Fred Fielding, a former White House counsel to Republican presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
Interviews are being conducted in the search for an ethics adviser for the trust, the lawyer said.
“The written approval of the ethics adviser will be required for new deals, actions and transactions that could potentially raise ethics or conflict of interests concerns,” the lawyer said.
Trump has terminated all pending business deals to clear the way for becoming president. His access to information about his businesses will be sharply limited, the lawyer said.
The moratorium on new deals does not apply to contracts that are entered into by the Trump Organization and its affiliates in the ordinary course of business. Remaining debt will stay in place and will be dealt with during the ordinary course of business, the lawyer said.
Wow. That took me all of... 2 minutes.
Trump was putting in place an ethical way to set aside his businesses, even before he was inaaugurated. And considering his personal wealth at that time was roughly $4 billion in property, cash and other assets, that is quite a task to try and set aside altogether.
Compare that to the unethical practices of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Joe Biden and son Hunter Biden, and Biden's brother who also secured deals based on the influence of his brother while Joe Biden was still vice president. That's quite a double standard you have there, M E M. Trump is under suspicion while endeavoring to do everything ethically. And when Democrats are guilty of insider trading and securing lucrative positions for their relatives by bribery and intimidation and abusing their government position, you don't even think that warrants the slightest investigation.
Originally Posted By: M E M
...And when you spend time here defending Trump's decision to have the G-7 at his own resort...
Again, visibly and above board, AT COST! Trump wanted his facilities used because they were beyond dispute the nicest ones in the region for the G-7 event.
But to avoid the slightest possible appearance of impropriety, and to deprive the Democratss and liberal media of lying talking points they could twist it into, he cancelled the use of his Doral hotel for the event. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-doral-resort-out-2020-g7-summit
Originally Posted By: M E M
...or pressing a foreign country to try to dig up dirt on his political rival you think those are not obvious double standards?
You are using the Moscow Central Committee tactic of repeating a lie so often that it takes on the appearance of being true.
As I said, the evidence is that Joseph Biden did that, intimidating the Ukranian president into firing his attorney general, by threatening to withold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine if he didn't, and Biden OPENLY BOASTED ABOUT DOING SO, ON CAMERA.
Likewise as I listed above, where >>>DEMOCRAT<<< Senators Menendez, Leahy and Durbin sent a threatening letter to the Ukranian government for compromising information about Trump before the 2016 election.
And let it not be forgotten that the Hillary Clinton campaign >>>AND<<< the DNC paid millions to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele (a former British foreign agent), to get dirt for their Russia Dossier directly from Russian agents, two of them high-level Russian intelligence officials, for which the Democrats paid MILLIONS to Russian officials.
It's absolutely amazing that you can allege this stuff about Trump, when ALL the evidence is there to show Democrats clearly did with a clear paper and money trail and plenty of witnesses, what they allege with mere smoke and mirrors about Trump.
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.
A trust that isn't blind and one he can withdraw funds from I might note. Not really a solution there to avoid conflicts of interests. I also would add that we only have the liar's word on a lot of what he announced back than.
A trust that isn't blind and one he can withdraw funds from I might note. Not really a solution there to avoid conflicts of interests. I also would add that we only have the liar's word on a lot of what he announced back than.
Again, it's infuriating the standards you hold Trump to, who is making every effort to follow ethical guidlines. Even as you simultaneously give a free pass to the blatant corruption and criminality of the Democrats I've cited, and many more Democrats. Your allegations might have the slightest weight, if you held your fellow Democrats to the same standard and investigation.
Trump has clearly sacrificed hundreds of millions in potential business, has cancelled aany foreign deals, has set aside any foreign profits and donated them to the U.S. treasury, has put others in charge of managing his business, and has set up an attorney to run any necessary transactions through, to avoid even the slightest appearance of being potentially unethical.
I mean, geez, what do you want?
Meanwhile, Hunter Biden has collected at least 3.5 million from Ukraine for a job he should have never had, secured only because of V.P.Biden's influence, and will collect at least another $20 million from China in the near future, again for a job he should never have had, but for Vice President Biden selling his office to China. Michael Pillsbury reported on Lou Dobbs that Biden had hawkish rhetoric against China up until Hunter Biden secured his $1.5 billion bank investment from China (and $20 million payoff).
At precisely that point, Biden softened his rhetoric toward China, and U.S. naval ships were ordered to stop patrolling the South China Sea they had previously patrolled. And at Biden's pressure, F-16's on order to be received by Taiwan were suddenly cancelled.
That's a pretty good look at what Asian policy would look like under Biden, or any of the current crop of 2010 Democrat candidates. Cultural marxists one and all, who: * all want to appease China, * to de-criminalize illegal immigration (and thus exploding it), * to decrease military spending (when Trump took office, 50% of our air force was grounded by mechanical problems and unready for combat, and Democrats still wanted to further slash military spending!), * to provide health insurance to illegal immigrants * and basically, on every level, to undermine police and enforcement, to enable crime, to weaken our borders and sovereignty, to further bankrupt the country with crushing new debt and spending, to undermine capitalism and transfer all power to an authoritarian permanent Democrat government, and purge all republican power and dissenting thought. I've already abundantly linked and quoted the supporting evidence for all the above. There is not speculation, this is what Democrats have clearly said, and done, at every opportunity. They don't even pretend otherwise anymore.
The party that hates America. Democrats have officially become the Bolshevik party.
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.
Apparently holding Trump to any standard is infuriating to you. Sorry I actually love my country, it's sad that you even go there. Principles and ethics like love of country are not owned by either party. When Trump uses his office to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rivals or chooses his own properties to host an event like the G-7 and you're playing defense for him, I'm not the one with a problem.
Apparently holding Trump to any standard is infuriating to you. Sorry I actually love my country, it's sad that you even go there. Principles and ethics like love of country are not owned by either party. When Trump uses his office to pressure a foreign country to investigate his political rivals or chooses his own properties to host an event like the G-7 and you're playing defense for him, I'm not the one with a problem.
I don't see any facts or logical arguments in that little tantrum.
Here in about 6 minutes Rep. Jim Jordan perfectly deconstructs the incredible confluence of odd and incestuous related facts and people surrounding the "whistleblower"/informant/spy/rat who filed the coup attemt disguised as a "whistleblower report". The endless connections still unravelling that lead to the Deep State, the office of Rep. Adam Schiff, and especially to the CIA and broader Deep State intelligence community (FBI, CIA, DNI, DOJ, and State Department) and the DNC/Hillary Clinton campaign, Obama administration, and ultimately intertwined with the Russians and Ukranians, who they, the Democrats, and their Deep State operatives DIRECTLY PAID AND COERCED/BLACKMAILED/COLLUDED with to frame Republicans.
Everything Democrats are accusing Trump of, they the Democrats are guilty of themselves, with overwhelming evidence. Only by selective omission is the media not reporting it. Sara Carter and John Solomon are the Woodward and Bernstein of our times, exposing this corruption. And since Pulitzer prizes are handed out by the establishment/Left, it is doubtful they will ever be credited with exposing this Democrat/Deep State corruption. God knows the Democrats and liberal media have done their damnedest to hide and suppress the true facts, and intiumidate those who would report it.
And if Hillary Clinton had been elected, it would have been buried, none of this would ever have come to light. But it DID come to light, despite your side's best efforts to hide the truth.
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.
More to the point, M E M, your side, the treaonous vicious Democrats, called Tulsi Gabbard (a House member and decorated Major in the U.S. military) a "Russian asset". Let that sink in for a minute. Hillary Clinton called this officer a traitor, based on no evidence, and the talking heads (in the video I linked above) on MSNBC and CNN similarly, based on nothing, were eager to back Hillary up on that vicious attack as well. And apparently, you as well are piling on that vicious attack.
And then you have the audacity to say Trump and Republicans are traitors, and the Democrats, liberal media and you are the true patriots?!? Listen again to jesse Watters' comments linked above. Your party since the 1940's has been the party that's been soft on and sympathetic to communists for over 70 years.
If you've forgotten the facts on that, let Ann Coulter remind you:
When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991 and the Kremlin records were opened, all the facts showed that McCarthy was right, that there were communst spies everywhere, and the complacency of Democrats is what enabled them. Democrats like William Ayers, John Kerry, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Jane Fonda, sided with the Communists in protest against their own country. House Democrats in the Iraq war wanted to de-fund our troops in Iraq to force George W. Bush to bring them home in defeat.
For over 70 years, Democrats have been the party of undermining our troops in the field, siding with our enemies, and the very moral right of the U.S. to exist as a nation. And you have the audacity to talk about patriotism. It's your party that shits on patriotism every day. Abolishing Columbus Day and replacing it with "Indigenous Peoples' Day", tearing down monuments to Washington, Jefferson and other national heroes, wanting to stack to Supreme Court with liberals who ignore precedent, wanting to eliminate the Electoral College. Yours is the party of Constitution-overthrowing globalism. And you have the audacity to call others "Russian assets" and brand yourselves as the true patriots. Whatever serves the Revolution, I guess.
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.
Wow. Anyhoo today's testimony by the diplomat of Ukraine (Taylor) wasn't good for Trump. Ukrain was obviously being pressured to help Trump with his campaign. This diplomat details what was going on. I think it's a fairly safe bet that Trump will be impeached. What the senate does with it will be interesting to say the least.
"“In August and September of this year, I became increasingly concerned that our relationship with Ukraine was being fundamentally undermined by an irregular informal channel of U.S. policy-making and by the withholding of vital security assistance for domestic political reasons,” Taylor testified, according to a copy of his remarks obtained by The Post. Taylor said President Trump himself made the release of military aid to Ukraine contingent on a public declaration by Ukraine’s president that the country would investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and the 2016 election."
So yesterday a bunch of republicans stormed the impeachment inquiry. That didn't happen when Lindsey Graham was having closed door depositions during the Clinton impeachment.
The impeachment inquiry will become public very soon and who really thinks that was actually the issue?
So yesterday a bunch of republicans stormed the impeachment inquiry. That didn't happen when Lindsey Graham was having closed door depositions during the Clinton impeachment.
The impeachment inquiry will become public very soon and who really thinks that was actually the issue?
In about 9 minutes, former Reagan-era DOJ chief of staff Mark Levin sums up the written protocol of the impeachment proceedings for each of the 3 past House proceedings for the impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, in which impeachments a FULL House vote each time before proceeding, giving full open public disclosure to BOTH parties, EQUAL powers to subpoena witnesses, EQUAL powers to both sides to call and cross-examine witnesses, and all tesimony in full open disclosure to the public.
As sharply contrasted with Rep. Adam Schiff's locking the process in his judiciary committee, and only the Democrat half of the committee, without a vote of the full 435-member House, only in the Democrat portion of the Judiciary committee, NOT allowing Republicans equal access to subpoena power and witnesses, not even allowing Republicans transcripts of witness testimony after the fact!
Bill Clinton was given representation by the Republican majority in 1998, that House Democrats in control are NOT giving Donald Trump. Through selective Democrat leaks of only limited portions of U.S.- Ukranian ambassador Taylor's testimony, NOT his entire testimony, Democrats make it APPEAR to support impeachment, in the absence of disclosing Taylor's full testimony.
Why is Donald Trump not entitled to the same rights and full open disclosure that was given to presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton?
The goal of Democrats are one-sided non-bipartisan closed door proceedings and selective leaks, to poison public opinion for as many weeks or months as possible, so that when at some point full disclosure occurs, public opnion will already be tainted by the propagandized partial facts. So that when full House disclosure occurs, the true facts will be eclipsed and no longer listened to.
Yeah, so much for bipartisan and open disclosure. What Democrats are engaged in is a one-sided is a Soviet-style secret court, leaking only what is advantageous to their side, with no possible defense by Republicans, or even access to the full witness testimony or cross examination for exculpatory facts to clear Trump.
As Levin himself says, terrorists and prosecuted criminals are treated better legally than the rules Democrats have set up now.
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.
But Nixon & Clinton both started out with witnesses giving testimony behind closed doors. The House is gathering the facts for this one and there will be public testimony and a vote. This is all being done with republican members on those committees having equal time to ask witnesses questions. This is all within the rules that republicans actually used during the Benghazi investigation. Considering you have no problem with Trump pressuring a foreign country to investigate his political rivals I fail to see how you can have a real issue with this but I doubt you'll be happy when the testimony becomes public. It's really about protecting a corrupt president.
But Nixon & Clinton both started out with witnesses giving testimony behind closed doors. The House is gathering the facts for this one and there will be public testimony and a vote. This is all being done with republican members on those committees having equal time to ask witnesses questions. This is all within the rules that republicans actually used during the Benghazi investigation. Considering you have no problem with Trump pressuring a foreign country to investigate his political rivals I fail to see how you can have a real issue with this but I doubt you'll be happy when the testimony becomes public. It's really about protecting a corrupt president.
Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton both had clear charges and evidence against them before there were any hearings of witnesses and evidence.
In contrast, Democrats have held very one-sided proceedings. Clearly, they are hell-bent of manufacturing whatever case they can against Trump, truth be damned. Democrats have ignored the past precedent of establishing highly visible bipartisanship. Quite the opposite, EVERYTHING the Democrats have done so far has been an exercise in corrupt use of their power. There is no Democrat interest in the truth displayed here, framing Trump by any means is their only concern.
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.
Well if you're good with Trump asking a foreign country to investigate his political rivals than we have different definitions of what corruption truly is. The democrats are gathering the evidence and testimony in the best way to prevent witnesses from aligning stories. When their done gathering the facts the inquiry will become public. Given how team Trump operates I think their being smart. I've been reading the bits of testimony and it's more than just Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. It looks like they have him on withholding the foreign aid money to try to help him beat Biden in '20.
Well if you're good with Trump asking a foreign country to investigate his political rivals than we have different definitions of what corruption truly is.
Well, as said above...
Originally Posted By: M E M
...or pressing a foreign country to try to dig up dirt on his political rival you think those are not obvious double standards?
Originally Posted By: WB
You are using the Moscow Central Committee tactic of repeating a lie so often that it takes on the appearance of being true.
As I said, the evidence is that Joseph Biden did that, intimidating the Ukranian president into firing his attorney general, by threatening to withold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Ukraine if he didn't, and Biden OPENLY BOASTED ABOUT DOING SO, ON CAMERA.
Likewise as I listed above, where >>>DEMOCRAT<<< Senators Menendez, Leahy and Durbin sent a threatening letter to the Ukranian government for compromising information about Trump before the 2016 election.
And let it not be forgotten that the Hillary Clinton campaign >>>AND<<< the DNC paid millions to Glenn Simpson/Fusion GPS/Christopher Steele (a former British foreign agent), to get dirt for their Russia Dossier directly from Russian agents, two of them high-level Russian intelligence officials, for which the Democrats paid MILLIONS to Russian officials.
It's absolutely amazing that you can allege this stuff about Trump, when ALL the evidence is there to show Democrats clearly did with a clear paper and money trail and plenty of witnesses, what they allege with mere smoke and mirrors about Trump.
You seem immune to those facts.
Originally Posted By: M E M
The democrats are gathering the evidence and testimony in the best way to prevent witnesses from aligning stories. When their done gathering the facts the inquiry will become public.
No. The Democrats are hiding testimony, and with smoke and mirrors and selective leaks of testimony outside of its full context, creating a deliberate false narrative about Trump. While simultaneously avoiding any equal justice against far more blatant abuses by Democrats. As in the examples of what I just posted above. Democrats and Republicans should be held to the same standard, not weaponizing justice by Democrats to destroy Republicans, just to gain power.
Originally Posted By: M E M
Given how team Trump operates I think their being smart. I've been reading the bits of testimony and it's more than just Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden. It looks like they have him on withholding the foreign aid money to try to help him beat Biden in '20.
The full transcript of the phone call between Trump and Zelensky says otherwise. There was no misconduct by Trump. Multiple televised interviews of Ukranian president Zelenskyy say otherwise. There was no misconduct by Trump.
Multiple deposed witnesses by House Democrats (behind closed doors, to manipulate their testimony, but the truth comes out anyway) also demonstrate there was no misconduct by Trump. Democrats cling to the slightest illusion, crafted by misdirection and false context to imply otherwise. There is no misconduct by Trump.
The beauty of it is, everything Democrats accuse Trump of, is what Democrats themselves have done. But Democrats corruptly protect their own from prosecution or even from investigation. The double standard of Democrats is just incredible.
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 have a very liberal interpretation of that transcript of the call. He specifically brings up Biden being investigated. And the testimony by the diplomats backs up that the aid was being withheld by Trump to try to smear Biden. Does it make sense to you that he's trying to block testimony and records that would support his story?
You have a very liberal interpretation of that transcript of the call. He specifically brings up Biden being investigated. And the testimony by the diplomats backs up that the aid was being withheld by Trump to try to smear Biden. Does it make sense to you that he's trying to block testimony and records that would support his story?
No, it doesn't. As many times as you repeat that lie.
Trump, as part of his oath as president to defend the Constitution and fully execute our laws, has every right to request information about criminal actions that originate from Ukraine, regarding matters of corrupt use of U.S. finds by the Bidens, and that were corruptly used to sabotage Trump in the 2016 election.
Regarding the allegedly hacked DNC server, that was suspiciously never handed over to or requested by the Democrat-loyalist FBI for examination, it was just accepted without evidence that it was hacked, without evidence ever gathered by the FBI to verify it was hacked, or what specifically was hacked. Trump requested information about that.
Likewise, Trump requesting information about Ukraine's participation in the "Russia Dossier/Fusion GPS. Information that the Ukranian government had attempted to inform the DOJ and FBI about previously, ignored by the partisan Democrat-loyalist FBI. Trump simply made clear that we did want that evidence, and that under new DOJ maanagement (William Barr) it will not be ignored this time. I would also argue that Giuliani went to Ukraine to obtain information directly for the same reason, because the DOJ and FBI were not forthcoming with exculpatory evidence for him to protect his client, President Trump, and without that cooperation from FBI/DOJ, he had every right to go to Ukraine and gather that evidence directly from the source.
Likewise with the Bidens. That was an ongoing case long before Trump's request, evidence previously not investigated by DOJ/FBI and it required no coercion for Zelenskyy to send it. Trump could have avoided throwing the Democrats a talking point by only mentioning Burisma, but Trump violates no laws by simply mentioning the centerpiece of the investigation. It's not like Trump said hey, I might be running against Biden, send me any information that might help me win. No, he simply said these people are part of an investigation, send me whatever information you can to assist the DOJ investigation.
And finally, what you allege about the ambassadors' testimony is only what appears to be the case, within the narrow context of the partial transcript that the lying Democrats released, RELEASING ONLY THE PORTION THAT SELLS THEIR LYING NARRATIVE, *NOT* THE FULL TRANSCRIBED TESTIMONY.
Even the Republican House members on the judiciary committee are not able to attend the testimony in Schiff's hearings, to ask questions and cross examine, and examine the witnesses testifying, to determine whether their body language indicates they are lying or telling the truth. To a man and woman, I've yet to see any who give the appearance of NOT being career bureaucrats who are Democrat/deep state loyalists hostile to the president and trying to undermine him. The ones who are loyal to Trump are the ones reluctant to testify and violate Trump's executive privelege and confidentiality.
There is no logical reason why Republicans cannot attend the hearings, no top secret matters are discussed. And the irony with Democrats is they hold these meetings in secure conference (SCIF) rooms, and then the Democrats come out and leak whatever "top secret" testimony aids their lying propaganda campaign. The reporters wait for these daily leaks right outside the SCIF room! To anyone but a partisan Democrat, these hearings are a joke, and a perverse twisting of legal procedure.
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.
A kangaroo court is a court that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, and often carries little or no official standing in the territory within which it resides.[1] The term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court's legal or ethical obligations. The defendants in such courts are often denied access to legal representation and in some cases, proper defence and the right of appeal.
Prejudicial bias of the decision-maker or from political decree are among the most publicized causes of kangaroo courts.[citation needed] Such proceedings are often held to give the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict was already decided before the trial actually began.
A kangaroo court could also develop when the structure and operation of the forum result in an inferior brand of adjudication. A common example of this is when institutional disputants ("repeat players") have excessive and unfair structural advantages over individual disputants ("one-shot players").[2]
Jesse Watters summed up well the abusive one-sidedness and secretiveness of the Democrats' House judicial committee hearings under Rep. Adam Schiff, the blatant dishonesty.
Just after her opening comment, her interview with Rep. Andy Biggs (from roughly 7:00 to 16:00) goes into great detail in how Democrats are abusing procedure, and threatening Republicans with costly lawsuits and legal fees if they even object. Just as they did with Rep. Devin Nunes a year ago. Incredible Democrat abuse of power.
I've noticed that some conservatives are making the argument that Trump needs to stop trying to argue that it wasn't a quid pro quo because it obviously was and the House has the evidence. The argument should be that it's not an impeachable offense. Such a gross corrupt use of power though still leaves Trump getting impeached.
I've noticed that some conservatives are making the argument that Trump needs to stop trying to argue that it wasn't a quid pro quo because it obviously was and the House has the evidence. The argument should be that it's not an impeachable offense. Such a gross corrupt use of power though still leaves Trump getting impeached.
You so desperately want it to be true. Kurt Volker's testimony, and texts, already disproved this before it was even alleged.
This is just pure vindictive Democrat politics, with a few never-Trumpers from the establishment Right piling on. But wishful thinking by Dems won't make it true. Hilton's commentary 20 minutes in rips apart the argument you'd like to believe.
I'm not the one painting an entire side as anything that suits someone 's propagandist needs at the moment. If I think the news sucks I can't dismiss it by declaring it fake. Accusations are not facts because I want them to be. Sondland' testimony like Taylor's show there was a push by Trump to pressure a country to investigate the guy Trump knows can beat him in the upcoming election. You've made allegations of corruption for far less than that. Now it's different because?
I'm not the one painting an entire side as anything that suits someone 's propagandist needs at the moment. If I think the news sucks I can't dismiss it by declaring it fake. Accusations are not facts because I want them to be. Sondland' testimony like Taylor's show there was a push by Trump to pressure a country to investigate the guy Trump knows can beat him in the upcoming election. You've made allegations of corruption for far less than that. Now it's different because?
It's not "propagandist" to state the quantifiable facts.
I've cited many sources over the years that lay out the incredbile bias of the news media, that prior to Obama's campaign in 2008, news reporters for 50 years up till then had self-identified as consistently 80% "liberal" or "very liberal".
And it's been reported even in the partisan liberal media that reporters largely abandoned objectivity and felt a need to take sides against Republicans and with Obama and other Democrats since then. I've cited case after case of reporters being fired for their activism, where rather than report the news, they have been rabid activists for the idological causes thay were supposed to be objectively covering. I listed half a dozen examples of biased fired reporters in the Occupy Wall Street topic alone.
And now... well... multiple reporters have become unapologetic about it being their holy mission to "stop Trump". They don't even pretend otherwise anymore. The pretense of objectivity they fronted for decades is gone now.
CNN has become a golden monument, the holy altar, of liberal bias. CNN is a joke, whose news coverage could only appear "objective" to the already initiated.
Anderson Cooper in the most recent Democrat primary debate asked Joseph Biden a question about Hunter Biden's corrupt business associations in Ukraine and China, and laughably called the accusations "obviously false". He might as well have been wearing an BIDEN 2020 campaign button when he asked the question. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/sco...sed-your-son-no
Other liberal-biased moderators, that arguably turned an election, include Candy Crowley and Martha Raddatz. And the liberal media even plays favorites and kicks down Democrat primary candidates, in favor of the ones they want to win, as with Tulsi Gabbard in the last few debates. CNN clearly favors Elizabeth Warren across multiple debates, and consistently gives her more debate-time. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/poli...sed/1884548001/
A Harvard study showed that CNN and NBC coverage of Donald Trump is 93% negative. And far more skewed across the entire media, as compared to the media's coverage of President Obama. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2017/0...ive_410848.html
Those are just a few examples, there are many more:
In the 2008 election, 93% of Washington-based journalists supported Obama, a higher ratio of support than ultra-liberal population regions like Boston and San Francisco. Gee, I wonder how that might affect election coverage! https://ricochet.com/88333/archives/poli...lterman-part-2/
Plus many more examples. Liberal media bias is not even disputed by most liberals. And it is backed up by quite possibly an even greater bias by teachers and college professors. Which I've also cited and linked. Bill O'Reilly cited on his program a few years ago that at Harvard's political science department, his alma mater, there were 25 liberal professors and not a single conservative on staff.
I think you way overestimate bias but regardless bias doesn't automatically equate to lies. Bias certainly becomes okay it seems when it's leaning conservative. The House has always had the right to subpoena witnesses and documents. Pelosi is using the same rules republicans used on Clinton via Benghazi. And it is all going to be public very soon. I suspect Trump still isn't going to cooperate because the WH records are not going to help him.
I think you way overestimate bias but regardless bias doesn't automatically equate to lies. Bias certainly becomes okay it seems when it's leaning conservative. The House has always had the right to subpoena witnesses and documents. Pelosi is using the same rules republicans used on Clinton via Benghazi. And it is all going to be public very soon. I suspect Trump still isn't going to cooperate because the WH records are not going to help him.
That's an overwhelming consensus of quantifiable liberal media bias, and my above post just cited multiple examples where it does equate to lies.
You are using deceitful arguments to try and rationalize what the Democrats have been doing for the last month. What Democrats are doing is ABSOLUTELY NOT the same standard that was used in the previous impeachments of Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, and Bill Clinton. All of which were public hearings with clear bipartisanship.
That is absolutely not the same Democrat procedure set for impeaching Trump. Republicans have nbo access to witnesses, they have no freedom to even read transcripts after the fact, while not even able to attend. And then Democrats, while keeping testimony under lock and key in a Secure Conference room (SCIF), leak out small portions to the liberal media that feed the lying narrative they are trying to portray.
Republican House members cannot observe witnesses firsthand in closed testimony. They cannot see their body language that experience would tell if they were lying. They cannot cross-examine with their own questions, or test the veracity of witnesses, or gather exculpatory evidence that would exonerate Trump and his officials. And the American people are denied the ability to see these proceedings with their own eyes.
To get this kind of "freedom" that Democrats are giving us, one would have to time travel to a Soviet court, Castro's Cuba, Che Gueverra's death squads, or Mao's China. Well... Xi's China is actually a step up on the authoritarianism of Mao's China. And since the Democrat Left exalts all these regimes, we shouldn't be surprised when they unleash the same tactics on America.
Trump is just the beginning. If Democrats could, they would unleash the same authoritarian reign of terror on every American. Even the moderates in their own party. That would be worth popping some popcorn to watch.
No deceitful arguments required WB. (And what would be the point anyways) Most depositions are not done in the open for very valid reasons. That was true with both the Clinton and Nixon impeachments. If the House stayed with keeping everything behind closed doors that would be great news for Trump supporters but the plan was to move into a public phase soon. I think you will have a tough time justifying Trump's actions.
It was never the standard in past impeachment proceedings that the other side could not call witnesses or ask questions. The previous impeachments were all done with full openess and bipartisan consensus on the rules of proceedings. That is absolutely NOT the case of what Schiff and Nadler have set up with their respective judicial and intelligence committees.
Democrats today made a written proposal that Republicans can ask questions, but ONLY with permission of a Democrat vote to each question Republicans raise, overseen by Comrade-Commissar Adam Schiff. That has absolutely no precedent, and is completely unacceptable.
Tough. The rules allow it. But this will become public like you guys said you wanted.
I find it unacceptable that a president used foreign aid to try to force another country to investigate his political rival. Totally corrupt! Let this country watch how many of his party scramble to try to protect that corruption. You're not going to like it out in public.
"If the gentleman would hear me out, I suspect we'd find agreement," [Rep. Tom Cole (R-OK)] said, as [Rep. James McGovern (D-MA)] began to interrupt. "Let me stipulate that I am absolutely asking for something that was not given to Democrats in the Clinton inquiry. I was here during the Clinton inquiry I'm absolutely asking for something that was not granted to the minority in that time. But I'm asking for it anyway because I think it's important."
Cole went on to argue that the Democrats' new process was meaningfully different. "During [the Clinton inquiry,] whether it was the chair or the ranking member, if one of those disagreed with issuing a subpoena, then the entire committee voted on whether or not to move forward. That is not the rule you have created here.
"Once again, in what seems to be very petty partisanship, because it makes no functional difference because of how the committee operates," Cole continued, "you say that if the ranking member [minority judiciary committee leader Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA)] asks for a subpoena and it's denied, the full committee will vote; but if the chairman [judiciary committee majority leader Rep. Jerry Nadler (R-NY)] asks for a subpoena, and the ranking member [Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA)] doesn't like it, that's just too bad, the full committee won't vote to validate the ranking member's position."
Cole also said that it was "unprecedented" that Democrats were denying Republicans the right to grant their time to other members, and for Democrats to draw up the impeachment procedures resolution with no GOP input.
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.
This was all acceptable when republicans changed the rules to investigate Benghazi. And if it's acceptable for the president to defy subpoena's and use military aid to try to force another country to investigate his biggest political rival for republicans this isn't about principles but protecting the corruption. Remember when your party was the rule of law party? You kissed that goodbye for Trump.
This was all acceptable when republicans changed the rules to investigate Benghazi. And if it's acceptable for the president to defy subpoena's and use military aid to try to force another country to investigate his biggest political rival for republicans this isn't about principles but protecting the corruption. Remember when your party was the rule of law party? You kissed that goodbye for Trump.
You might want to read Willie Brown’s editorial from this past weekend
Is this the one about making everything public? The House is releasing the transcripts now though and if I understand correctly witnesses will be called back to give public testimony. You know when republicans were impeaching Clinton, he still cooperated and also kept the government running.
Found the one I think you meant g. From Nov 2nd about Dems thinking impeachment is a winner, don't bet on it. Given what I've read and understand about Trump's Ukraine activities it doesn't matter if it's not politically a winner for my party. He clearly crossed the line imho in a clear provable way.
It's a Soviet-style investigation, M E M. Where from before Trump was even inaugurated, the Democrats (and their loyal Bolshevik collaborators in the liberal media) were publicly stating and openly salivating about finding a way to impeach Trump.
Sean Hannity frequently shows a montage (I think sourced from the Media Research Center) where every single month since Trump's Nov 2016 election the liberal media has leaped on this or that as the latest silver bullet that would lead to Trump's impeachment.
It is a case of manufacturing the crime to destroy the man, not an investigation of the true facts.
Or manufactured to fit a particular Democrat agenda. Donald Trump is quantifiably the most accomplished president of the last 50 years, even more accomplished than Ronald Reagan.
