Here is the link to the transcript...
- Thread starter Pospecteer
- Start date
Maybe we could have the British tap Biden's phones and hire foreign assets to put together some type of document... I don't know... a dossier of some sort....
The fact that they don't see the irony is amusing.
Literally none of this post is English. Obama asked foreign governments to investigate his political rivals? If so, was that wrong?
Is your threshold an explicit word for word quid pro quo summarized in a memo? Is that the standard. I'm just trying to get a baseline for what is and isn't acceptable for the President of the United States.
It's perfectly acceptable for an administration to investigate, even wiretap and attempt to entrap a political rival. That standard has already been set.
It is? I think that would be outrageous.
So where is your threshold? Can the President of the United States take a hit out on their political rival? A nosy journalist?
Read gooder.
"Obama asked foreign governments to investigate his political rivals? If so, was that wrong?"
That's EXACTLY what Obama did. EXACTLY. And dumb fuc#ers everywhere IGNORED IT, and instead focused in on "Russian Collusion".
The threshold for ANY prosecution is clear and concise evidence. Like Mule said... there's not enough there yet.
I'm linking a good article on the prosecutor in question, a prosecutor that Trump said that he thought was a pretty good one. It's worth noting that Shokin was corrupt in a way that would hamper, not advance, the Burisma investigation. So Biden threatened to withhold aid to have a guy who would protect Zelenskiy (and Burisma) removed from office. How is that corrupt?
BTW, I'm going to your second bullet point in post 6 with all of this. The prosecutor was corrupt, same as most of them had been. If you take off partisan glasses, this isn't a move to protect Hunter or his employer. They were being protected by the guy who was in that office.
https://www.rferl.org/a/why-was-ukraine-top-prosecutor-fired-viktor-shokin/30181445.html
I would think that Obama has insulated himself enough from being fingered for knowing about the dossier and the FBI and cIA getting involved with trying to oust Trump.I can't imagine those with direct ties to Obama putting it out there. I'm not sure Barr will go after them that hard.
If the transcript is accurate, there's no smoking gun on a quid pro quo. They will need more to make this stick.
I bring up the accuracy issue because Nixon released transcripts of his tapes during that impeachment inquiry. Those were not accurate transcripts of the tapes. So it's possible that the same thing could happen again.
:joy::joy::joy:
Just glad we know where the bar is now set for the future. Should be fun.
So your threshold is the President of the United States has to state an explicit quid pro quo. Got it.
Have you been in a cave for the past 2 years? Seriously?
You mock "Deepstate" then ***** about "Deepstate". [laughing]
You can couple it with his own statements - he confessed to withholding funds from them...and said he would do it again (which I'm sure he would if given the opportunity).
Nothing here violates ANY law -- which is why when referred to DOJ they declined to do anything.....
Absent a violation of law an impeachment vote would be purely a political move that half the country would see as a Coup to remove the duly elected President -- is that what people want? I'd say it would bring us closer than ever to Civil War....
Absent a violation of law an impeachment vote would be purely a political move that half the country would see as a Coup to remove the duly elected President -- is that what people want? I'd say it would bring us closer than ever to Civil War....
With Trump. Anything is possible. It wouldn't surprise me if they withheld some from the transcripts.
This C. Miller, who is how hell bent on taking down Trump and is not a fan of Zelenskiy :
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM
Let's stick to what we know...or maybe I'm not familiar with how a transcript is written...
I think you have to prove more than was in that conversation, at least what the transcript says was in that conversation. I think it smells bad. I think it looks bad. Do I think it will rise to something that goes anywhere without more information? I don't. There are stronger charges referred in the Mueller Report with respect to obstruction than we see in this call, at least as of my first reading of it. I'm willing to be wrong about this. A lot will depend on the whistle blower and how credible that witness is. A lot will depend on the ICIG report on this. I suspect you'll see attempts to get transcripts of Barr's and Guilliani's conversations with the Ukrainians, and that's going to factor in as well. I'm simply saying, this is still in the investigation stage. Gather up more than you see here, because what you see here is only enough to paint this as a political hit job without anything else.
Whatever party in control decides. The Dems and their media enablers started trying to oust Trump on Nov. 9, 2016. This latest attempt is pure bullsh*t. They House will impeach him......the Senate will never convict him.
I think He should have been impeached for the Mueller Report, but here we are. It's really a simple question. Who is OK with the President of the United States asking for personal political help from foreign governments? I think that's a simple yes or no question, but if we need to clarify, must there be an explicit quid pro quo from the President of the United States to this foreign government.
Another non answer. Is the question really that difficult for the board? Trumpers and libz?
Based on this transcript alone, if the House impeaches, the Senate won't vote for removal. Let's see where the investigation goes from here. Watergate took a while.
I'm not OK with it, wasn't OK with it when foreign assets were used to go after Trump, wasn't OK with it when Biden used his position to help his son, and when I see proof of it, I'll agree with you that impeachment is justifiable.
But yes, there has to be clear evidence.
Then their should be nothing to worry about is there. Trump asked for an investigation of two US citizens who may have used political influence for personal gain...If the Biden's are innocent, they should welcome this to clear their names...Trump said that he wanted some things cleared up, should the Biden's not welcome it?
Really? This is where you are going? Wow, and you act like you are objective.
Honestly......I don't know what the threshold is. Based on what has been released......I don't see any impeachable offenses......I'm sure you feel otherwise. Impeachment is basically a political act.
I'm not sure that Trump asking him to do "us" a favor is enough. The guy is all about marketing, always has been, and he can spin that intent. And it doesn't matter what he said a day ago or 3 days ago. He's been wildly inconsistent within individual speeches, and that's an easy out. The House needs to do the hard work if they want this to have teeth. That's the same hard work that they are not really doing well on the obstruction issues in the Mueller Report.
The Ukrainians are free to investigate Ukrainian issues. I've provided the reason why Joe's demand that the prosecutor be removed wasn't a move to protect his son. If anything, it definitely put his son's employer is a worse spot. Nothing was being investigated with repect to Burisma by Shokin. He was in Zelenskiy's pocket.
I gave a historical example of this happening in the past. I'm not saying it happened here. I'm saying that we've seen it happen before. Trusting a transcript alone is probably not the best idea. Let's see the IG report at least.
You tried to use a tainted proof source. We don't know what they were/were not investigating, but we do know that within a week that HB was employed as a Board Member, J. Biden asked the Ukraine to increase gas production, which would have benefited his son...Can you at least confirm that?