Of all the reasons to start a civil war, preserving slavery is the worst. But keeping President Trump in power is pretty high up on the list.

On Sunday, Trump tweeted the following statement by evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress: "If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal."

Jeffress isn't the only one predicting civil strife. Rudy Giuliani warned that impeaching Trump would risk "domestic tranquillity [sic]." Franklin Graham said that impeachment "could lead to conflict that nobody wants." "This is war," actor Jon Voight proclaimed.

The same people who mocked Hillary Clinton's voters for grieving after the 2016 election now say they will start a civil war if Trump is impeached in accordance with the Constitution.

Their premonitions are a sign of weakness. If you cannot argue your case with logic and evidence, you can appeal to faith or resort to threats of violence. Trump has done both. Prior to the 2018 midterms, Trump told a group of Christian leaders, "This November 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me. It's a referendum on your religion. It's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment. It's a referendum on so much. It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question that they will overturn everything that we've done, and they will do it quickly and violently."

As a candidate, Trump implored Americans to "take their country back" by voting for him. As president, he has convinced his base that any attempt to weaken him is an attempt to weaken the country they took back. By exploiting patriotic symbols like the flag and the national anthem, he hopes to make his interests and the nation's appear indistinguishable. He wants Americans to equate keeping their country with keeping him in office. "You're one election away from losing everything that you've gotten," he said last year. Now they're one impeachment away.

Trump reduces everything to a binary choice. You can love America or leave it. You can applaud Trump's speeches or commit treason against the United States. You can accept his abuses of power, or you will instigate a civil war by holding him accountable for them.

Some people on the right yearn for a civil war. "It's Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous," The Federalist's Jesse Kelly has suggested, along with: "America Is Over, But I Won't See It Go Without An Epic Fight." In March, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) posted a meme about a civil war between red states and blue states. King used to hang a Confederate flag in his office despite the fact that he's from Iowa. As it happens, people who claim to love America the most tend to fetishize Confederate memorabilia the most.

Nationalists are not always patriots. Patriots love their country as it is. Nationalists love their country as they imagine it once was, and sometimes not even then. "There seems to be a thin line between violent, extreme nationalism and treason," Harold Ettlinger wrote in The Axis on the Air. "It seems that a man is a fascist before he is an American or a Frenchman or a Norwegian, and that he will betray his country in the interests of fascism. One moment, being a fascist, he is violently nationalistic, working for a political creed which involves exalting his own country above others. The next moment, having been frustrated in his aims, he turns against his country and fights for its downfall, or sees to it, if it has already fallen, that it does not rise again."

This is not to say that Trump is a fascist. He is a narcissist. If Trump is removed from office, is there any doubt that he will root for civil unrest as a way to avenge his wounded feelings? Last week, he said the market would crash without him in the White House. Nothing would please him more. If he suffers, he will try to outsource his suffering to others. In a civil war as in the Vietnam War, Trump will let other people do his fighting for him.

https://theweek.com/articles/869170/imagine-worse-reason-start-civil-war

Of all the reasons to start a civil war, preserving slavery is the worst. But keeping President Trump in power is pretty high up on the list.

On Sunday, Trump tweeted the following statement by evangelical pastor Robert Jeffress: "If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal."

Jeffress isn't the only one predicting civil strife. Rudy Giuliani warned that impeaching Trump would risk "domestic tranquillity [sic]." Franklin Graham said that impeachment "could lead to conflict that nobody wants." "This is war," actor Jon Voight proclaimed.

The same people who mocked Hillary Clinton's voters for grieving after the 2016 election now say they will start a civil war if Trump is impeached in accordance with the Constitution.

Their premonitions are a sign of weakness. If you cannot argue your case with logic and evidence, you can appeal to faith or resort to threats of violence. Trump has done both. Prior to the 2018 midterms, Trump told a group of Christian leaders, "This November 6 election is very much a referendum on not only me. It's a referendum on your religion. It's a referendum on free speech and the First Amendment. It's a referendum on so much. It's not a question of like or dislike. It's a question that they will overturn everything that we've done, and they will do it quickly and violently."

As a candidate, Trump implored Americans to "take their country back" by voting for him. As president, he has convinced his base that any attempt to weaken him is an attempt to weaken the country they took back. By exploiting patriotic symbols like the flag and the national anthem, he hopes to make his interests and the nation's appear indistinguishable. He wants Americans to equate keeping their country with keeping him in office. "You're one election away from losing everything that you've gotten," he said last year. Now they're one impeachment away.

Trump reduces everything to a binary choice. You can love America or leave it. You can applaud Trump's speeches or commit treason against the United States. You can accept his abuses of power, or you will instigate a civil war by holding him accountable for them.

Some people on the right yearn for a civil war. "It's Time For The United States To Divorce Before Things Get Dangerous," The Federalist's Jesse Kelly has suggested, along with: "America Is Over, But I Won't See It Go Without An Epic Fight." In March, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) posted a meme about a civil war between red states and blue states. King used to hang a Confederate flag in his office despite the fact that he's from Iowa. As it happens, people who claim to love America the most tend to fetishize Confederate memorabilia the most.

Nationalists are not always patriots. Patriots love their country as it is. Nationalists love their country as they imagine it once was, and sometimes not even then. "There seems to be a thin line between violent, extreme nationalism and treason," Harold Ettlinger wrote in The Axis on the Air. "It seems that a man is a fascist before he is an American or a Frenchman or a Norwegian, and that he will betray his country in the interests of fascism. One moment, being a fascist, he is violently nationalistic, working for a political creed which involves exalting his own country above others. The next moment, having been frustrated in his aims, he turns against his country and fights for its downfall, or sees to it, if it has already fallen, that it does not rise again."

This is not to say that Trump is a fascist. He is a narcissist. If Trump is removed from office, is there any doubt that he will root for civil unrest as a way to avenge his wounded feelings? Last week, he said the market would crash without him in the White House. Nothing would please him more. If he suffers, he will try to outsource his suffering to others. In a civil war as in the Vietnam War, Trump will let other people do his fighting for him.

https://theweek.com/articles/869170/imagine-worse-reason-start-civil-war

(1) no sane person took that literally. you’ve never noticed he exaggerates? when obama said “republicans have to sit in the back of the bus”, did you take that literally? were you upset he was going to violate our civil
rights

(2) forget about trump. think about the notion that if democrats control the legislature, that they tell the american people that if we elect a president they don’t like, they’ll stop governing and focus fanatically on undoing the election, ignoring the will of the people. look at what they’re doing to kavanaugh still, still calling for his impeachment over a secondhand version of an incident the victim won’t admit ever took place. the idea that a party refuses to allow voters to decide things ( even their own voters, through the use of superdelegates to negate what voters do in a primary), its the exact opposite of democracy, it’s fascist.

that concerns a fair number of people. not you though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) no sane person took that literally. you’ve never noticed he exaggerates? when obama said “republicans have to sit in the back of the bus”, did you take that literally? were you upset he was going to violate our civil
rights

(2) forget about trump. think about the notion that if democrats control the legislature, that they tell the american people that if we elect a president they don’t like, they’ll stop governing and focus fanatically on undoing the election, ignoring the will of the people. look at what they’re doing to kavanaugh still, still calling for his impeachment over a secondhand version of an incident the victim won’t admit ever took place. the idea that a party refuses to allow voters to decide things ( even their own voters, through the use of superdelegates to negate what voters do in a primary), its the exact opposite of democracy, it’s fascist.

that concerns a fair number of people. not you though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? Moscow Mitch brings nothing to the floor for a vote, talk about not governing, perfect example of what you think is going on over in the house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really? Moscow Mitch brings nothing to the floor for a vote, talk about not governing, perfect example of what you think is going on over in the house.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you moved the goalposts, but ok. i agree that the republicans in the legislature aren’t doing nearly enough to improve the nation. i agree with you. fair enough? i do love the judges they’re appointing though.

i responded to your post, can you show me the same courtesy? why shouldn’t we be concerned, that the democratic party appears to be telling the nation that they will only accept the results of an election, if
they happen to approve of the outcome. if they don’t approve of the outcome, they will
never stop trying to un-do the results of said election.

i hated obama. but he won fair and square, and he was right when he said “elections have consequences”.

democrats are amazingly sore losers.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More of its its just hyperbole ... excuses. when i was in london boris johnson express extending the brexit dead line should be called the surrender act .. parliament went nuts ..they called it incendiary language..

TRUMP claim there will be a civil war (like A strongman would say) the cult of personality minimize it to hyperbole..amazing to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

(1) no sane person took that literally. you’ve never noticed he exaggerates? when obama said “republicans have to sit in the back of the bus”, did you take that literally? were you upset he was going to violate our civil
rights


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

One at a time

Over the weekend, the president sent a tweet that seemed to warn of civil war if he were to be impeached and removed from office:


Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

74.8K
9:11 PM - Sep 29, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
65.3K people are talking about this
Although the president was quoting Pastor Robert Jeffress’s comments on Fox News, he was adopting them as his own.

It might seem tempting to dismiss this language as of a piece with President Trump’s typical Twitter rhetoric. But it is worth paying particular attention to this tweet—because among the people who read it were militia groups enthusiastic about exactly what Trump portended. And while no violence has yet resulted from the president’s tweet, it would be foolish to underestimate the power of Trump’s comments to call rogue militias to action, particularly if there is an impeachment and he continues to use this rhetoric to fan the flames. In the days after his civil war tweet, he went on to use similarly incendiary language, referring to impeachment proceedings as a “COUP.”

Consider the Oath Keepers group, a far-right armed militia. Calling on its 24,000 Twitter followers to read the president’s whole tweet thread, the Oath Keepers account posted:


Oath Keepers
@Oathkeepers
Here’s the money quote from that thread. This is the truth. This is where we are. We ARE on the verge of a HOT civil war. Like in 1859. That’s where we are. And the Right has ZERO trust or respect for anything the left is doing. We see THEM as illegitimate too.@StewartRhodesOK https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1178477539653771264 …

Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Replying to @realDonaldTrump
....If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal.” Pastor Robert Jeffress, @FoxNews

171
1:59 AM - Sep 30, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
868 people are talking about this
Before this tweet, the Oath Keepers account tweeted that, under the U.S. Constitution, “the militia (that’s us) can be called forth ‘to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.’ ... “All he has to do is call us up. We WILL answer the call.” Other Oath Keeper tweets also hint at violence: One states that “their favorite rifle is the AR 15.”

According to the Oath Keepers’s webpage, the organization is “a non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill the oath all military and police take to ‘defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,’” while declaring that they “will not obey unconstitutional orders.” The Anti-Defamation League, by contrast, describes the group as “an anti-government right-wing fringe organization” whose members have appeared “as self-appointed armed guards” at various places around the country, in defiance of what they deem to be unconstitutional government action. Last month, the group sought “security volunteers” from their membership and “other capable patriots” to escort Trump supporters attending a New Mexico rally “to protect them from potential leftist violence.” And last year, the Oath Keepers announced its “Spartan Training Group program,” with the goal of “form[ing] training groups in as many states as possible” to create “a pool of trained, organized volunteers who will be able to serve as the local militia under the command of a patriotic governor loyal to the Constitution, or if called upon by President Trump to serve the nation” (emphasis in original).

The Oath Keepers are far from the only militia group that vocally supports deploying potential force in aid of the president. In November 2018, after Trump pledged to send up to 15,000 U.S. troops to the border to deal with the approaching caravan of Central American migrants, the militia group known as “The Minuteman Project” published an “URGENT CALL FOR TEXAS BORDER OBSERVATION DUTY” to cover the 2,000-mile border from San Diego to Brownsville, Texas. According to U.S. Army documents obtained by Newsweek at the time, the military expressed its concern internally about the presence of unauthorized militias along the border, warning that protests occurring at points of entry historically had been peaceful, “unless extreme right or left groups attend.” The Minuteman Project’s co-founder, Jim Gilchrist, cautioned potential volunteers that their adversaries were “US-based PROPAGANDA organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union, the Southern Poverty Law Center, People without Borders” and many more groups like them. He further warned members to “use extreme caution when confronted by mainstream media” because “they are not your friends.”

Earlier this year, after Trump’s reelection campaign repeatedly ran ads quoting Trump’s references to an “invasion” on the southern border, another group—the United Constitutional Patriots—set up camp at the New Mexico/Mexico border. Without any legal authorization, this group assumed the duty of U.S. Customs and Border Protection to stop and detain migrants, all while heavily armed and dressed in military fatigues. In March and April 2019, a spokesperson for the group, Jim Benvie, regularly posted livestream videos on Facebook showing militia members chasing and capturing migrants while armed with assault rifles, and detaining them until they could be turned over to U.S. officials. In other posts, the United Constitutional Patriots described themselves as combatants in a “war” raging along the border due to migrants’ “invasion” of the country and actively sought to recruit people with military or law enforcement experience to join them. One such recruit, upon observing migrants while on “patrol” at the border, reportedly grabbed his AR-15 and asked his fellow militia member, “Why are we just apprehending them and not lining them up and shooting them?” In April, after the group’s “national commander” was arrested on unrelated charges and the Union Pacific Railroad ordered the group off of its property, significant media attention exposed the militia’s activities and it reconstituted itself as the Guardian Patriots, decamped to private land with the owners’ consent, and closed its public Facebook account.

Both of these armed militias took action at least in part in response to Trump’s rhetoric about the need to secure the southern border. Now that the president has invoked the idea of civil war, there is a risk that armed groups will take heed of this language too, whenever the president suggests that it is time.

Federal criminal law prohibits “rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof,” including incitement or assistance to such rebellion or insurrection. It also prohibits conspiring to overthrow the U.S. government, levy war against it or oppose its authority by force. Based on the organization’s declared mission, there’s little doubt that the Oath Keepers would view any impeachment action by congress as “unconstitutional” and therefore not to be obeyed. Although the group’s current tweets come close to calling for rebellion or insurrection should that happen, there’s been no indication that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating. Are the militias drawing up plans for possible civil war, for example? Are they training? Are they stockpiling weapons? These are things that law enforcement should be investigating, whether under federal law or state law.

More of its its just hyperbole ... excuses. when i was in london boris johnson express extending the brexit dead line should be called the surrender act .. parliament went nuts ..they called it incendiary language..

TRUMP claim there will be a civil war (like A strongman would say) the cult of personality minimize it to hyperbole..amazing to watch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so if it’s not hyperbole, where is the war? how many democrats got shot in 5th avenue, when he made that idiotic, but obviously not to be taken literally, comment?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he “seemed to” warn of a civil
war. and even though he didn’t threaten ukraine ( as opposed to Biden), we can infer it, because that what Don Corleone did in the Godfather.

one moment he’s a baby like buffoon, the next moment he’s a cunning, shrewd mafia don. it’s hard to keep up with all the accusations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he “seemed to” warn of a civil
war. and even though he didn’t threaten ukraine ( as opposed to Biden), we can infer it, because that what Don Corleone did in the Godfather.

one moment he’s a baby like buffoon, the next moment he’s a cunning, shrewd mafia don. it’s hard to keep up with all the accusations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are distracting. Again. There is a transcript. There are documents. The IGIC says this is all credible. Try focusing on that.

You are distracting. Again. There is a transcript. There are documents. The IGIC says this is all credible. Try focusing on that.

Yes, do focus on the transcript. There is nothing in it that shows Trump being criminal or impeachable.

Yes, do focus on the transcript. There is nothing in it that shows Trump being criminial or impeachable.

i guess that’s what i’m confused by, what’s the most damning thing he said in the transcript? and i mean what’s actually in there, not Chris Cuomos interpretation of what he said.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, do focus on the transcript. There is nothing in it that shows Trump being criminial or impeachable.

A crime is not a requirement of impeachment.
Impeachment is a vote in the House and anything is impeachable.
Look at the reasons proposed for impeaching the last President.

Job offer to Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak
Preventing Obama from "pushing his agenda"
Obama administration immigration policy
Libya intervention
Benghazi attack
Impeachment requested by a townhall meeting audience member
False claims of being born outside the United States
IRS targeting conservatives
Debt ceiling crisis
Hearing on "President's Constitutional Duty"
Prisoner swap
Transgender bathroom directive

The Transcript shows bribery as defined by the Founders.
Perhaps the stenographers very professional exact words that Trump claims exist will show more or was he hyperbolizing once again.

In fact, Trump’s conduct almost certainly satisfies the modern statutory standard for bribery. As Randall Eliason has explained, a quid pro quo “need not be stated in express terms; corrupt actors are seldom so clumsy, and the law may not be evaded through winks and nods.” We have little doubt that a prosecutor would be able to establish a quid pro quo based on what was said on the call and the surrounding facts and context. (As an aside, Trump’s conduct also likely qualifies as extortion. As James Lindgren has explained at length, historically there has been a substantial overlap between the concepts of extortion and bribery, and around the time of the Founding, the terms were often used to describe the same conduct.)

But even if Trump’s actions do not satisfy the modern criminal standard for bribery, the argument from Trump’s defenders is misplaced—because the federal statute isn’t the relevant statement of the law in the context of impeachment.

The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law. On the most basic level, no federal criminal code existed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Beyond that, the Framers had no reason to believe that Congress would enact federal criminal statutes in the future. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz explain in their comprehensive book on impeachment, “To End a Presidency,” criminal law was understood to be the province of the states, and there was very little federal criminal law at all until the mid-20th century. To the extent there was federal criminal law, it followed the common law model. That is why the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by federal statutes. The same goes for bribery—as there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.

you moved the goalposts, but ok. i agree that the republicans in the legislature aren’t doing nearly enough to improve the nation. i agree with you. fair enough? i do love the judges they’re appointing though.

i responded to your post, can you show me the same courtesy? why shouldn’t we be concerned, that the democratic party appears to be telling the nation that they will only accept the results of an election, if
they happen to approve of the outcome. if they don’t approve of the outcome, they will
never stop trying to un-do the results of said election.

i hated obama. but he won fair and square, and he was right when he said “elections have consequences”.

democrats are amazingly sore losers.


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Seriously, your red MAGA hat is too tight. I'd be the first to say I really despise politics and I wish we could get term limits passed, but I don't see this as the right does. Only Trump and his minions see this as some vendetta, because we lost the election.

I'm not getting back into a debate about what Mueller uncovered or why he "couldn't" bring charges, or the spin that this call was "perfect", the congress is doing it's job of oversight and trying to hold this president accountable. He is abusing his power, he is profiting off the office, he continues to obstruct justice and now has reached out to foreign powers to aid in his bid to win the 2020 election. Spin all that anyway you want, but that's what is happening and he has made us that much weaker globally and endangers our national security.

Seriously, your red MAGA hat is too tight. I'd be the first to say I really despise politics and I wish we could get term limits passed, but I don't see this as the right does. Only Trump and his minions see this as some vendetta, because we lost the election.

I'm not getting back into a debate about what Mueller uncovered or why he "couldn't" bring charges, or the spin that this call was "perfect", the congress is doing it's job of oversight and trying to hold this president accountable. He is abusing his power, he is profiting off the office, he continues to obstruct justice and now has reached out to foreign powers to aid in his bid to win the 2020 election. Spin all that anyway you want, but that's what is happening and he has made us that much weaker globally and endangers our national security.

“he is profiting off his office”

agreed. so did biden’s son.

“has reached out to foreign powers to help his re election”.

so did obama when he asked a russian official to postpone missile talks until after his election. so did senate democrats when they asked ukraine to investigate manafort and trump. so has every president ever. much of what they do is to get themselves re elected. if trump gets a good trade deal with china, that would help him get re elected, so is that an impeachable offense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spinning must make you dizzy Jim.

Trump just committed a felony violation of law by soliciting something of value in connection with a US election from a foreign gov’t on national TV. 52 U.S. Code § 30121. Violating the law isn’t necessary for Impeachment but it certainly warrants it.
The statute requires knowledge your conduct is a crime. After the Mueller investigation, there’s no way Trump was unaware this violates the law. Ukraine/China can you hear me is even worse than Russia, if that’s possible, because it comes from a sitting president.
Campaign finance crimes also require a thing of value be involved. But as FEC Chair Ellen Weintraub recently said, you don’t have to be able to assign a dollar amount. But, in the case of Ukraine, Trump did this. The help he sought was worth $400mil in US aid. That’s a felony
The key here is recalling impeachment doesn’t require a felony. Impeachment is meant, in the immortal words of Lindsey Graham to cleanse the office. But for those who’ve demanded a felony crime before a president can be impeached, here it is in plain view.

We know that Trump has enlisted Pompeo, Ghouliani, Foreign leaders & possibly others to defraud the United States & its campaign laws.

"Russia, if you're listening" is now China, Ukraine, anyone if you're listening, help me and I'll be there for you, not for America.

“he is profiting off his office”

agreed. so did biden’s son.

“has reached out to foreign powers to help his re election”.

so did obama when he asked a russian official to postpone missile talks until after his election. so did senate democrats when they asked ukraine to investigate manafort and trump. so has every president ever. much of what they do is to get themselves re elected. if trump gets a good trade deal with china, that would help him get re elected, so is that an impeachable offense?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Straight from Putin's playbook

The only recent president to not profit from the office is Jimmy Carter. The Clintons sure used it to right their ship. Obama also did pretty well considering he just bought a house that was for sale for 20 million. Which happens to be on the climate change/ global warming watch list.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump just has no filter, right on the south lawn when asked what he wanted from Ukraine, he admitted he wanted Biden investigated and had the stupidity to ask China do the same. Are you guys ignoring the obvious, this clown will deal out national security in exchange for four more years. The stupid arrogant filterless crap coming out of his mouth never ends and just when we think it can’t possibly get worse it does. I just can’t see republicans holding down this Trump island for long before defections begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As a practical matter, China will now see investigating Trump’s potential political opponent as a bargaining chip in the ongoing trade negotiations.

A crime is not a requirement of impeachment.
Impeachment is a vote in the House and anything is impeachable.

If you're trying to school me on what it takes to impeach, you needn't bother. I have stated at least two times on this forum that the House could impeach for any reason it wants if it has the votes.

Look at the reasons proposed for impeaching the last President.

Job offer to Pennsylvania Representative Joe Sestak
Preventing Obama from "pushing his agenda"
Obama administration immigration policy
Libya intervention
Benghazi attack
Impeachment requested by a townhall meeting audience member
False claims of being born outside the United States
IRS targeting conservatives
Debt ceiling crisis
Hearing on "President's Constitutional Duty"
Prisoner swap
Transgender bathroom directive

Here we go again. What you do best. Change the subject. Pile on with stuff that has nothing to do with the transcript. As if spouting out a whole lot of words is enough to make it sound that you have a valid point.

The Transcript shows bribery as defined by the Founders.
Perhaps the stenographers very professional exact words that Trump claims exist will show more or was he hyperbolizing once again.

I don't recall how the Founders defined bribery. Perhaps you could refresh. I don't see bribery in the transcript. As for withholding funds, it seems that the Ukraine Pres. didn't know about that till after the phone call. And it has been explained and corroborated, that the temporary fund withholding was to gain leverage in getting the Europeans to pony up more aid for Ukraine than they were giving. As for the Bidens, when Trump asked for help, he directly referred to Ukraine's possible interference in the election. Trump didn't say anything about the Bidens until after the Ukraine President brought it up.

In fact, Trump’s conduct almost certainly satisfies the modern statutory standard for bribery. As Randall Eliason has explained, a quid pro quo “need not be stated in express terms; corrupt actors are seldom so clumsy, and the law may not be evaded through winks and nods.” We have little doubt that a prosecutor would be able to establish a quid pro quo based on what was said on the call and the surrounding facts and context. (As an aside, Trump’s conduct also likely qualifies as extortion. As James Lindgren has explained at length, historically there has been a substantial overlap between the concepts of extortion and bribery, and around the time of the Founding, the terms were often used to describe the same conduct.)

But even if Trump’s actions do not satisfy the modern criminal standard for bribery, the argument from Trump’s defenders is misplaced—because the federal statute isn’t the relevant statement of the law in the context of impeachment.

The Founders had no intent of tying the constitutional definition of bribery to federal criminal statutory law. On the most basic level, no federal criminal code existed at the time that the Constitution was drafted. Beyond that, the Framers had no reason to believe that Congress would enact federal criminal statutes in the future. As Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz explain in their comprehensive book on impeachment, “To End a Presidency,” criminal law was understood to be the province of the states, and there was very little federal criminal law at all until the mid-20th century. To the extent there was federal criminal law, it followed the common law model. That is why the concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by federal statutes. The same goes for bribery—as there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.

OK, so what you're saying is that there is no federal statutory reason here for the impeachment by this federal House of Representatives (there is no evidence of bribery in the transcript). And we both agree that Congress can cook up any grounds it wants to impeach if it has the votes.

This post by you was in response to my saying yes, do focus on the transcript. As usual, you wander on to other possibilities and conjectures. And, in the end, you seem to settle on this impeachment attempt being for whatever the House wants it to be about. The transcript, which I said to focus on (which I thought you wanted to do in your post that I responded to), in substantive fact, has no statutory or criminal reasons for impeachment. It's simply about the House wanting to impeach.

In substantive fact, actually, the transcript does contain a legitimate request, per the treaty with Ukraine, to assist on a matter pertaining to an ongoing DOJ investigation. That is something you, to this point, have avoided talking about. Why?

Trump just has no filter, right on the south lawn when asked what he wanted from Ukraine, he admitted he wanted Biden investigated and had the stupidity to ask China do the same. Are you guys ignoring the obvious, this clown will deal out national security in exchange for four more years. The stupid arrogant filterless crap coming out of his mouth never ends and just when we think it can’t possibly get worse it does. I just can’t see republicans holding down this Trump island for long before defections begin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He has no filter, none whatsoever. He also says a lot of stupid, arrogant crap. Does anyone deny this? The remedy for all of that, is winning the next election, not in-doing the previous one.

I don't see him as a national security threat.

Perhaps you can point to where Zelensky brings up Biden

UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified by order of the President
September 24, 2019
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUBJECT: Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Participants: President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
Date, Time July 25, 2019, 9:03-9:33 am EDT
and Place: Residence
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.

The President: (laughter) That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.

President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.

The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she ·doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.

President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us. I will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly.. That I can assure you.

The President: Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it... It sounds horrible to me.

President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.

The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, their incredible people.

President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful and cooperating on energy independence with United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

The President: Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.

The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.

President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye.

OK, so what you're saying is that there is no federal statutory reason here for the impeachment by this federal House of Representatives (there is no evidence of bribery in the transcript). And we both agree that Congress can cook up any grounds it wants to impeach if it has the votes.

This post by you was in response to my saying yes, do focus on the transcript. As usual, you wander on to other possibilities and conjectures. And, in the end, you seem to settle on this impeachment attempt being for whatever the House wants it to be about. The transcript, which I said to focus on (which I thought you wanted to do in your post that I responded to), in substantive fact, has no statutory or criminal reasons for impeachment. It's simply about the House wanting to impeach.

In substantive fact, actually, the transcript does contain a legitimate request, per the treaty with Ukraine, to assist on a matter pertaining to an ongoing DOJ investigation. That is something you, to this point, have avoided talking about. Why?

Detbuch, do you know if the Europeans did, in fact, pony up more?

Is there legitimate, credible evidence to suggest aid was withheld to get the Europeans to help more, rather than to pressure them on Biden? Or is it all he said / she said?

OK, so what you're saying is that there is no federal statutory reason here for the impeachment by this federal House of Representatives (there is no evidence of bribery in the transcript). And we both agree that Congress can cook up any grounds it wants to impeach if it has the votes.

This post by you was in response to my saying yes, do focus on the transcript. As usual, you wander on to other possibilities and conjectures. And, in the end, you seem to settle on this impeachment attempt being for whatever the House wants it to be about. The transcript, which I said to focus on (which I thought you wanted to do in your post that I responded to), in substantive fact, has no statutory or criminal reasons for impeachment. It's simply about the House wanting to impeach.

In substantive fact, actually, the transcript does contain a legitimate request, per the treaty with Ukraine, to assist on a matter pertaining to an ongoing DOJ investigation. That is something you, to this point, have avoided talking about. Why?

Show me the legitimate request in the memo, per the treaty.

Detbuch, do you know if the Europeans did, in fact, pony up more?

Is there legitimate, credible evidence to suggest aid was withheld to get the Europeans to help more, rather than to pressure them on Biden? Or is it all he said / she said?

According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, EU institutions top the OECD’s list of the top 10 donors of official development assistance to Ukraine, with $425.2 million contributed on average for 2016-2017. The U.S. was second with $204.4 million in assistance, closely followed by Germany, which contributed $189.8 million on its own, in addition to contributions it would have made through the European Union.

CSIS’ King, a former U.K. defense and foreign conflict specialist, detailed the aid the U.S. and other countries have provided to Ukraine in a Sept. 26 report. U.S. Agency for International Development figures King cited show the U.S. has contributed between $272 million and $513 million annually since 2014. As for military assistance, the U.S. has contributed about $800 million, “which includes small arms, counter-narcotics efforts, training programs, and military advisers to support and improve the Ukrainian forces, among others,” King wrote.

Those are sizable numbers, but the EU has given more. “The European Union is the largest donor to Ukraine” King wrote, estimating that the EU has given almost twice as much on average per year than the U.S. since 2014.

Maja Kocijancic, EU spokesperson for foreign affairs and security policy, told us in an email, “The European Union’s support to Ukraine is unprecedented. In these five years, we have put together for Ukraine the largest support package in the history of the European Union.”

He has no filter, none whatsoever. He also says a lot of stupid, arrogant crap. Does anyone deny this? The remedy for all of that, is winning the next election, not in-doing the previous one.

I don't see him as a national security threat.

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps you can point to where Zelensky brings up Biden
After Trump's initial request for help in general with the "whole situation" in Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.:

Zelensky: "I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine."

One of the things Giuliani would have brought up and would again would be the Bidens involvement in Ukraine corruption. Zelensky's mention of Giuliani would have sparked Trump's reaction to the Bidens being part of the "whole situation."

And BTW, it is perfectly legitimate to ask for assistance in determining Biden's son's involvement, especially since he was being investigated before the prosecutor was fired. Biden is not immune simply because he is a candidate running against Trump.

Again, everything Trump asked for was perfectly valid per the mutual assistance treaty.

Show me the legitimate request in the memo, per the treaty.

Are you for real? The whole nonsense is about Trump's request for aid from a foreign government. That request, per the MLAT treaty was valid and treaty members are obliged, per treaty, to assist when asked.

After Trump's initial request for help in general with the "whole situation" in Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.:

Zelensky: "I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once he comes to Ukraine."

One of the things Giuliani would have brought up and would again would be the Bidens involvement in Ukraine corruption. Zelensky's mention of Giuliani would have sparked Trump's reaction to the Bidens being part of the "whole situation."

And BTW, it is perfectly legitimate to ask for assistance in determining Biden's son's involvement, especially since he was being investigated before the prosecutor was fired. Biden is not immune simply because he is a candidate running against Trump.

Again, everything Trump asked for was perfectly valid per the mutual assistance treaty.

What was Guiliani's role?

What did he contact Ukrainian officials for and under what governmental authority?

The treaty is quite clear on how it works and nothing that was done was within the lines.

Are you for real? The whole nonsense is about Trump's request for aid from a foreign government. That request, per the MLAT treaty was valid and treaty members are obliged, per treaty, to assist when asked.

And legitimate requests are typically hidden on that server?

Presidential conversations with a foreign leader are circulated among the members of the administration that are affected by them.
No one saw it.
They buried it.
They buried the whistleblowers report.
They are stonewalling the investigation.

What mutual aid treaty do we have with the People's Republic of China?
Or is it, he didn't ask them for a favor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=719N5DJO1Bs

Bill Taylor, top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, wrote that he thought it’s “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” in newly disclosed text messages shared with lawmakers.

Detbuch, do you know if the Europeans did, in fact, pony up more?

I don't know. Trump's reasoning is what is in question, not if Trump's opinion about the Europeans need to give more is correct. And it wasn't simply about money aid. In the phone call in question, Zelensky specifically said the Europeans needed to do more re sanctions on Russia. And Pete F. keeps bringing up the EU as a whole, whereas Trump was referring to individual Euro countries.

Is there legitimate, credible evidence to suggest aid was withheld to get the Europeans to help more, rather than to pressure them on Biden? Or is it all he said / she said?

It has not been a secret that Trump believed that the Europeans were not assisting as much as he though they should. He had stated it several times including to the NATO Secretary General. The limited time left to OK the aid is why he did finally OK it. Congressman Rob Portman corroborated Trump's reasoning. He had discussed with Trump the necessity of getting the aid without further delay, and he said that the only reason that Trump said he wanted to delay it was that the Europeans were not doing enough. (And Portman agreed with him). Trump claims that after he put a hold on the aid and why, he got calls from some that they were willing to pony up more. That could be a "he said." I don't know. But Ken Vogel reported in the NYT that Ukraine didn't know until a month after the call that a hold had been put on the aid. It's a hell of a way to bribe someone when you haven't revealed to that person what the bribe is.

By a 52-21 margin, Americans think asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an abuse of power, per USAToday poll.

The gap among independents is huge: 45%-16%.

It's even close among Republicans: 30%-40%.

Doubling down like this is ... unbelievably risky.

And legitimate requests are typically hidden on that server?

Presidential conversations with a foreign leader are circulated among the members of the administration that are affected by them.
No one saw it.
They buried it.
They buried the whistleblowers report.
They are stonewalling the investigation.

Trump released the transcript. It is not hidden. If you don't know what is on the server, how can you definitively accuse Trump of bribery, treachery, high crimes and misdemeanors?

It has not been a secret that Trump believed that the Europeans were not assisting as much as he though they should. He had stated it several times including to the NATO Secretary General. The limited time left to OK the aid is why he did finally OK it. Congressman Rob Portman corroborated Trump's reasoning. He had discussed with Trump the necessity of getting the aid without further delay, and he said that the only reason that Trump said he wanted to delay it was that the Europeans were not doing enough. (And Portman agreed with him). Trump claims that after he put a hold on the aid and why, he got calls from some that they were willing to pony up more. That could be a "he said." I don't know. But Ken Vogel reported in the NYT that Ukraine didn't know until a month after the call that a hold had been put on the aid. It's a hell of a way to bribe someone when you haven't revealed to that person what the bribe is.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

By a 52-21 margin, Americans think asking Ukraine to investigate Biden is an abuse of power, per USAToday poll.

The gap among independents is huge: 45%-16%.

It's even close among Republicans: 30%-40%.

Doubling down like this is ... unbelievably risky.

Oh for God's sake. Let's take a poll to determine the truth. How many Americans even know about MLAT's. What is sacrosanct about Biden. Is he above the law? Being a President who bucks the establishment is unbelievably risky. I'm surprised Trump has gotten this far.

Trump released the transcript. It is not hidden. If you don't know what is on the server, how can you definitively accuse Trump of bribery, treachery, high crimes and misdemeanors?

Trump released the memo, he claims there is a word by word transcript by professional stenographers.
The full conversation remain hidden.
Until the obstruction stops and all the evidence is produced no one can be definite.

Oh for God's sake. Let's take a poll to determine the truth. How many Americans even know about MLAT's. What is sacrosanct about Biden. Is he above the law? Being a President who bucks the establishment is unbelievably risky. I'm surprised Trump has gotten this far.

Using the power of your office to investigate your opponent is illegal.
McGhan told him that.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

I think that you responded to the wrong post since it has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I'm just guessing that Trump would have some inclination about that. Certainly more than you.

Bill Taylor, top U.S. diplomat to Ukraine, wrote that he thought it’s “crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign” in newly disclosed text messages shared with lawmakers.

Were you a professional cherry picker? Seriously, was that your job? That would explain a LOT.

It's funny, I read an article on this at lunch just today. Bill Taylor is the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, and as you say, he said a quid pro quo was crazy.

Here's what you so conveniently left out. Gordon Sondland is the US Ambassador to the EU, and when he heard what Bill Taylor said, he texted Taylor and told him this:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Now, I have never heard of either of these two men. I have no idea who they are, or who is more correct here. One guy feels there is a quid pro quo, the other says there wasn't. That tells me I have no idea what actually happened. It tells you, that Trump is guilty.

This is what happens. Conflicting accounts, followed by partisan nuts like you immediately leaping to the conclusion that serves your personal agenda, and you ignore that which doesn't serve your agenda.

Try showing a tiny speck of intellectual honesty once in awhile. You ignore everything that could offer a benign explanation, and everything that makes Trump look bad, you suck it up like a Hoover deluxe and question none of it.

Destroyed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr-ukraine-envoy-volker-meets-with-dem-led-house-committee-in-closed-door-session

Using the power of your office to investigate your opponent is illegal.
McGhan told him that.

So when senate democrats used their office to ask Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump, what was that? Heroism?

I think that you responded to the wrong post since it has nothing to do with it.

Anyway, I'm just guessing that Trump would have some inclination about that. Certainly more than you.

You said that Ken Vogel said Zelensky did not know.

Rudy met with Zelensky's rep.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

Using the power of your office to investigate your opponent is illegal.
McGhan told him that.

McGhan wasn't referring to the power of office to request assistance from an MLAT partner. It would be silly to say that, Oh, it's OK to investigate somebody if they are not your opponent, but if they are, then you can't touch them. That is non-sense. The request had to do with Ukraine corruption that affected and/or interfered with an election. Nobody is immune from such an investigation just because he is an opponent.

Trump certainly wasn't immune from being investigated even though he was a candidate for office and his opponents asked for help in discrediting him and finding out if he had committed crimes and interfered with an election.

So when senate democrats used their office to ask Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump, what was that? Heroism?

They hid it in the congressional record.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Pr osecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investiga tion.pdf

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin (D-Ill.), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)issued the following joint statement in response to President Trump’s reference to a letter they sent to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine in 2018 raising their concerns that the Trump Administration could unduly pressure Ukraine into obstructing the Mueller investigation by withholding funding:

“President Trump is desperate to divert attention from his abuse of power. We wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general in 2018 regarding press reports that, in order to curry favor with President Trump, Ukraine was considering not cooperating with Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections.

“The Ukrainians were justifiably concerned that Trump would exact revenge by blocking security assistance if they did not act in his political favor. It turns out that was truer than any of us could have imagined. Yes, we were worried that the President of the United States would abuse his office and leverage U.S. security assistance for his own personal agenda back in 2018. It looks like we were right then and we are right now.

The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

Were you a professional cherry picker? Seriously, was that your job? That would explain a LOT.

It's funny, I read an article on this at lunch just today. Bill Taylor is the Chargé d’Affaires of the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, and as you say, he said a quid pro quo was crazy.

Here's what you so conveniently left out. Gordon Sondland is the US Ambassador to the EU, and when he heard what Bill Taylor said, he texted Taylor and told him this:

"Bill, I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The President has been crystal clear: no quid pro quo's of any kind. The President is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign."

Now, I have never heard of either of these two men. I have no idea who they are, or who is more correct here. One guy feels there is a quid pro quo, the other says there wasn't. That tells me I have no idea what actually happened. It tells you, that Trump is guilty.

This is what happens. Conflicting accounts, followed by partisan nuts like you immediately leaping to the conclusion that serves your personal agenda, and you ignore that which doesn't serve your agenda.

Try showing a tiny speck of intellectual honesty once in awhile. You ignore everything that could offer a benign explanation, and everything that makes Trump look bad, you suck it up like a Hoover deluxe and question none of it.

Destroyed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fmr-ukraine-envoy-volker-meets-with-dem-led-house-committee-in-closed-door-session

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Trump is the first President to ask favors, of the kind that would make the person granting the favor, entitled to a favor in return? That doesn't happen every day in politics?

They hid it in the congressional record.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/5-4-18%20Menendez%20joint%20letter%20to%20General%20Pr osecutor%20of%20Ukraine%20on%20Mueller%20investiga tion.pdf

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senators Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), #^&#^&#^&#^& Durbin (D-Ill.), and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)issued the following joint statement in response to President Trump’s reference to a letter they sent to the General Prosecutor of Ukraine in 2018 raising their concerns that the Trump Administration could unduly pressure Ukraine into obstructing the Mueller investigation by withholding funding:

“President Trump is desperate to divert attention from his abuse of power. We wrote to the Ukrainian prosecutor general in 2018 regarding press reports that, in order to curry favor with President Trump, Ukraine was considering not cooperating with Special Counsel Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in U.S. elections.

“The Ukrainians were justifiably concerned that Trump would exact revenge by blocking security assistance if they did not act in his political favor. It turns out that was truer than any of us could have imagined. Yes, we were worried that the President of the United States would abuse his office and leverage U.S. security assistance for his own personal agenda back in 2018. It looks like we were right then and we are right now.

The Senators’ letter was written in response to a New York Times report that the Ukrainian Prosecutor General was considering not cooperating with the Mueller Probe out of concern that President Trump would cut off aid as punishment. The Senators’ letter in no way calls for the conditioning of U.S. security assistance to Ukraine.

And again, when the senators claim they did nothing wrong, that's good enough for you. Because they are democrats.

In a poll this week, 40% of Republicans said they believe that Trump never asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.

He just did it in front of a camera on the South Lawn of the White House.

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

Oh, so qualifications are important to you? Except in wondering why Hunter Biden got a huge job at a Ukranian energy concern.

No principles. Only politics.

You said that Ken Vogel said Zelensky did not know.

Rudy met with Zelensky's rep.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

I said that Vogel said that Zelensky did not know that aid had temporarily been put on hold until a month after the phone call. Are you implying that Rudy told the rep about the withholding of aid? If so, you might want to give Vogel your documentation so he can retract the story.

And again, when the senators claim they did nothing wrong, that's good enough for you. Because they are democrats.

Which of the three questions are wrong?
As members of a coequal branch of government what are they prohibited by the Constitution from doing that is in that letter?

I said that Vogel said that Zelensky did not know that aid had temporarily been put on hold until a month after the phone call. Are you implying that Rudy told the rep about the withholding of aid? If so, you might want to give Vogel your documentation so he can retract the story.

Why did Rudy meet with him?
What was said?

What has happened in Ukraine lately and why?

Putin's Puppet is making payments on his last election.

And then said we should discuss this offline.

As far as who they are one is a career diplomat, the other gave a Million to the Trump campaign and was made ambassador to the EU.

Bet you can figure out who's who.

Wow. You knew the detail that they said theyd discuss offline, but you STILL left out the part that one denied there was a quid pro quo.

Sondland's nomination received bipartisan support during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 21, 2018.[12] Both Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) testified in support of Sondland.[13] Sen. Wyden suggested that Sondland’s "family history is both fascinating and instructive as to why he has the experience and understanding to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gordon_Sondland

Oh. People who stay in public service either career, are more legitimate than those who succeed in the private sector, and then enter public service. That makes all kinds of sense.

How many more of the 10,000 anti Trump articles you posted here, are missing suck vital facts? Can't help but wonder...

As members of a coequal branch of government what are they prohibited by the Constitution from doing that is in that letter?

Trump is the executive branch. Where in the constitution does it say he can't ask a foreign government to look into what appears to any fair-minded person, as corruption?

I'm not saying what the senators did was wrong. I'm saying what they did, is a lot like what Trump did. I'm saying it was either OK for all of them, or unethical for all of them. You're saying it was acceptable for one, but not the other. And gee whiz, the one you don't exonerate, is Trump.

Why did Rudy meet with him?
What was said?

Must be some gender-erotic thing. One of those bromance things . . . like Trump and Putin. No doubt, they'd prefer to keep their conversation private. But it will probably be leaked. Or at least a version of it.

What has happened in Ukraine lately and why?

Putin has sent in thousands of those renowned beautiful Russian agent women to seduce the Zelensky's government into surrendering. Trump has taught him to make love not war.

Putin's Puppet is making payments on his last election.

Sounds like a very responsible thing to do.

Trump released the memo, he claims there is a word by word transcript by professional stenographers.
The full conversation remain hidden.
Until the obstruction stops and all the evidence is produced no one can be definite.

No one except you. That being said, let's impeach the m-fer anyway.

I'm not saying what the senators did was wrong. I'm saying what they did, is a lot like what Trump did. I'm saying it was either OK for all of them, or unethical for all of them. You're saying it was acceptable for one, but not the other. And gee whiz, the one you don't exonerate, is Trump.
It was nothing like what Trump did, not to mention the antics of Rudy and Barr. Whole thing stinks like a pile of rotting fish.

It was nothing like what Trump did, not to mention the antics of Rudy and Barr. Whole thing stinks like a pile of rotting fish.

Wow! A powerful statement!

Favors are a funny thing, once you have a few foreign powers doing you favors, they are going to request you do the same. Most likely those requests will not be in plain sight or public, but could very well impact our national security.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Favors" requested through MLAT's are not personal political favors. Wikipedia: "A mutual legal assistance treaty (MLAT) is an agreement between two or more countries for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information in an effort to enforce public or criminal laws . . . for requesting and obtaining evidence for criminal investigations and prosecutions."

Partners in MLAT are obligated to provide assistance in those specific matters. It's not a scratch my back I'll scratch yours situation. It's a treaty obligation.

Spin it however you like, he was asking for help digging up dirt on his 2020 opponent, not buying into your rational. So was his request China do the same dirty work legit too, you guys crack me up, I think some of you got hit in the head while circling the wagons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spin it however you like, he was asking for help digging up dirt on his 2020 opponent, not buying into your rational. So was his request China do the same dirty work legit too, you guys crack me up, I think some of you got hit in the head while circling the wagons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

imagine how much money hunter biden and kerry's step son will make if biden wins in 2020

Spin it however you like, he was asking for help digging up dirt on his 2020 opponent, not buying into your rational. So was his request China do the same dirty work legit too, you guys crack me up, I think some of you got hit in the head while circling the wagons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

MLAT'S are not spin. They are fact. I'm not selling you anything. I am stating fact. You can google it. And the US has a similar agreement with China, an MLAA (Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement).

Your framing it as "dirty work" or "dirt" is the spin here. By your spin, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) should be retitled Mutual Dirt Assitance Treaty, and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement retitled Mutual Dirt Assistance Agreement.

These Treaties and Agreements are not for digging up dirt. They are obligatory co-operations to assist on various criminal and legal matters in which a Government or private or political entity in that country may have participated or have information on. Digging up any other "dirt" cannot be done via these treaties.

and he keeps ignoring the fact that Zelensky stated he felt no pressure as it relates to United States aid to Ukraine.

but goat strippers, an anonymous whistleblower with third hand information and a bunch or rabid "impeach the mothe*&^*&*r" democrats say he did....soooooo

and he keeps ignoring the fact that Zelensky stated he felt no pressure as it relates to United States aid to Ukraine.

Ha did you watch the video? You're going to throw the country giving you weapons to stay alive under the bus?

Spin it however you like, he was asking for help digging up dirt on his 2020 opponent, not buying into your rational. So was his request China do the same dirty work legit too, you guys crack me up, I think some of you got hit in the head while circling the wagons.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And the 3 democrat senators also asked Ukraine to investigate political adversaries. Those two things can both b acceptable, or they can both be unethical. If you say one is Ok and one is not, then this discussion is political rather than principled.

And the 3 democrat senators also asked Ukraine to investigate political adversaries. .

Ukraine was the democrats little play land for dirty dealing

Ukraine was the democrats little play land for dirty dealing

Reported tody that Hunter may have pocketed multiple millions. Nothing to see there, because getting kicked out of the army for snorting cocaine, obviously prepares you to help run a Ukramian energy conglomerate. And just a coincidence that his dad was (1) VP and (2) Obama's point man on Ukraine.

Reported tody that Hunter may have pocketed multiple millions. Nothing to see there, because getting kicked out of the army for snorting cocaine, obviously prepares you to help run a Ukramian energy conglomerate. And just a coincidence that his dad was (1) VP and (2) Obama's point man on Ukraine.
What did he do wrong Jim?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What did he do wrong Jim?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did who do wrong, hunter? he got rich
off his dads influence. and you tolerate that. amazing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what did who do wrong, hunter? he got rich
off his dads influence. and you tolerate that. amazing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What are Trump’s kids currently doing? You think Dad’s position and influence help Ivanka’s recent Chinese trademarks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What are Trump’s kids currently doing? You think Dad’s position and influence help Ivanka’s recent Chinese trademarks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're one of the few Progressive leaning guys on this forum for whom I have some basic respect when it comes to politics. So, if you believe that the Chinese gvt. is trying to help the Trumps in any way, that is a hopeful sign that the Chinese may actually want to come to some mutually beneficial trade agreement with Trump . . .

Nah . . . I don't think Xi Jinping wants to give Trump political victories. As long as Trump is having trouble getting our government bureaucracy solidly behind his efforts, as long as the establishment powers here are against Trump, Xi would prefer to wait for Trump to be ousted in the next election or be impeached. Then trade negotiations and tariffs will go away and the previous status quo that enabled china to become an economic power at our expense--wealthy enough to sucker the needy third world to become dependent on China through his Belt and Road Initiative. And so become the dominant world power.

On the other hand, if this country and its political parties supported Trump, reassuring his re-election, then China might find it too debilitating to continue the tariff war with Trump. And some temporary kind of more equitable reciprocity might be achieved. Until the Dems got control back.

What did Rudy tell Zelensky's representative?

Don't know what he was saying. He was, for quite some time, asking, investigating. Here is some evidence he came up with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOVsLNmmA70

and:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuX6YQBLOa0

What are Trump’s kids currently doing? You think Dad’s position and influence help Ivanka’s recent Chinese trademarks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did Trump threaten China to get her the trademarks? Ivanka already owned businesses making all kinds of crap. What experience did Hunter have in Ukranian energy?

I agree the Trump family should have divested all that nonsense.

MLAT'S are not spin. They are fact. I'm not selling you anything. I am stating fact. You can google it. And the US has a similar agreement with China, an MLAA (Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement).

Your framing it as "dirty work" or "dirt" is the spin here. By your spin, Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT) should be retitled Mutual Dirt Assitance Treaty, and Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement retitled Mutual Dirt Assistance Agreement.

These Treaties and Agreements are not for digging up dirt. They are obligatory co-operations to assist on various criminal and legal matters in which a Government or private or political entity in that country may have participated or have information on. Digging up any other "dirt" cannot be done via these treaties.

OMG that’s rich, do you really think Trump even is aware those treaties exist, the man is clueless and doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know. Even on the very and I repeat very remote possibility he was aware, it’s a hey wink, wink, nod, nod, I have a pressing investigation that really has never been resolved haha, spin away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OMG that’s rich, do you really think Trump even is aware those treaties exist, the man is clueless and doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know. Even on the very and I repeat very remote possibility he was aware, it’s a hey wink, wink, nod, nod, I have a pressing investigation that really has never been resolved haha, spin away.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You say here he's clueless. others here say he has the cunning of a mafia don to deliver such an ominous, veiled threat to Ukraine.

Which is it? Is he Don Corleone, or Fredo? You guys want him to be both, he can't be both.

You say here he's clueless. others here say he has the cunning of a mafia don to deliver such an ominous, veiled threat to Ukraine.

Which is it? Is he Don Corleone, or Fredo? You guys want him to be both, he can't be both.

You really with a straight face can say you are confident Trump has a wealth of political knowledge, especially when it comes to past treaties and agreements, I’d suggest you’d be lying if you tried. I never would suggest he is actually cunning enough to pull this madness together as some diabolical plot, he just flys by the seat of his pants, is raw no filter BS non stop. Why do you think the very best people he had to begin with are long gone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

OMG that’s rich, do you really think Trump even is aware those treaties exist, the man is clueless and doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know. Even on the very and I repeat very remote possibility he was aware, it’s a hey wink, wink, nod, nod, I have a pressing investigation that really has never been resolved haha, spin away.


You seem to be under the impression that you've said something of substance here. Your opinion about what Trump thinks or knows or is remotely aware of has no substantial importance in this matter. All you've done here is evade the fact that what Trump requested was absolutely legitimate, and replaced that legitimacy with your sarcastic and uninformed opinion. And that is all you could do, in order to maintain some fictitious level of credibility for your previous ignorant comments and opinions.

You not only proclaim that Trump is totally clueless, but must think that the Secretary of State, Trump's lawyers, the State Dept., all Trump advisors, are also clueless. It is their business to know something as basic as to what is legal to do when asking for foreign assistance on ANY matter. These treaties are not some dusty old files hidden in some remote never looked at file. They are paid attention to on a continuing basis when any political or legal matter between countries must be addressed.

When the media sources that you, or the public in general, doesn't tell you what you don't know, you inherently assume there is nothing to know. However, those who expand the variety of media sources are more likely to be informed about things than those who are stuck on their one-sided sources which would rather you didn't know everything you need to know to fully understand an issue. This issue of treaties that allow what Trump asked is probably not discussed by the sources that you get your info from because they would rather that you didn't know and so keep you stuck on the notion that it is illegal or unconstitutional to ask foreign powers to "dig up dirt" on their opponents. That is the preferred level of discussion that gives some appearance of a reason for impeachment.

However, other more honest media have informed those of us who listen to them about the treaties and a great deal of other things that cast a whole different light on the issue.

So it is not that Trump is clueless. It is that you are. Not through any fault of your own, except that your sources are not helping you out.

Your claim that Trump "doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know" is unsubstantiated nonsense. He has always surrounded himself with "experts" even in his business ventures. He sometimes disagrees with some of them, but he hears them all out. Other sources would have helped you to know some things about Trump that you don't, but your sources would rather that you believe he is all the various boogymen that they've planted in your head.

what did who do wrong, hunter? he got rich
off his dads influence. and you tolerate that. amazing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you speaking about Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seem to be under the impression that you've said something of substance here. Your opinion about what Trump thinks or knows or is remotely aware of has no substantial importance in this matter. All you've done here is evade the fact that what Trump requested was absolutely legitimate, and replaced that legitimacy with your sarcastic and uninformed opinion. And that is all you could do, in order to maintain some fictitious level of credibility for your previous ignorant comments and opinions.

You not only proclaim that Trump is totally clueless, but must think that the Secretary of State, Trump's lawyers, the State Dept., all Trump advisors, are also clueless. It is their business to know something as basic as to what is legal to do when asking for foreign assistance on ANY matter. These treaties are not some dusty old files hidden in some remote never looked at file. They are paid attention to on a continuing basis when any political or legal matter between countries must be addressed.

When the media sources that you, or the public in general, doesn't tell you what you don't know, you inherently assume there is nothing to know. However, those who expand the variety of media sources are more likely to be informed about things than those who are stuck on their one-sided sources which would rather you didn't know everything you need to know to fully understand an issue. This issue of treaties that allow what Trump asked is probably not discussed by the sources that you get your info from because they would rather that you didn't know and so keep you stuck on the notion that it is illegal or unconstitutional to ask foreign powers to "dig up dirt" on their opponents. That is the preferred level of discussion that gives some appearance of a reason for impeachment.

However, other more honest media have informed those of us who listen to them about the treaties and a great deal of other things that cast a whole different light on the issue.

So it is not that Trump is clueless. It is that you are. Not through any fault of your own, except that your sources are not helping you out.

Your claim that Trump "doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know" is unsubstantiated nonsense. He has always surrounded himself with "experts" even in his business ventures. He sometimes disagrees with some of them, but he hears them all out. Other sources would have helped you to know some things about Trump that you don't, but your sources would rather that you believe he is all the various boogymen that they've planted in your head.

When you’re a Stable Genius you don’t have to worry about that stuff and those guys don’t know how it really works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and he keeps ignoring the fact that Zelensky stated he felt no pressure as it relates to United States aid to Ukraine.

but goat strippers, an anonymous whistleblower with third hand information and a bunch or rabid "impeach the mothe*&^*&*r" democrats say he did....soooooo
And in the next days after Trump f’d him and he had no chance what happened in Ukraine
Putin’s a winner
Trump is a #^&#^&#^&#^&ing traitor
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Asking a notoriously totalitarian regime that's in the middle of a mass incarceration of religious and ethnic minorities to "investigate" your political rival?

Very presidential, very conservative, so patriotic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They must have been talking about ordering lunch and everyone does that

Taylor: Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?
Sondland: Call me
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What are Trump’s kids currently doing? You think Dad’s position and influence help Ivanka’s recent Chinese trademarks?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

as spence would say, I think you need to do a little homework....NRO has a great Hunter Biden timeline...it's pretty remarkable and troubling

You say here he's clueless. others here say he has the cunning of a mafia don to deliver such an ominous, veiled threat to Ukraine.

Which is it? Is he Don Corleone, or Fredo? You guys want him to be both, he can't be both.

they are just screaming loons...mad about everything...there's not much thinking involved

as bad a trump can be at times, he's still no where near as loathsome as the democrat cast of characters nipping his heels soooo....

Kavanaugh all over again...this is going to be fun!


"The whistleblower who filed a complaint against President Trump that now forms the center of an impeachment inquiry against him is a registered Democrat, according to a report from CNN."

You really with a straight face can say you are confident Trump has a wealth of political knowledge, especially when it comes to past treaties and agreements, I’d suggest you’d be lying if you tried. I never would suggest he is actually cunning enough to pull this madness together as some diabolical plot, he just flys by the seat of his pants, is raw no filter BS non stop. Why do you think the very best people he had to begin with are long gone?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he has very little political experience. 98% of the time, i’m totally fine with that. despite his lack of experience, he opened up a major can of whoop ass on his opponent who has eons of political experience, so in my opinion, political experience is vastly overrated.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Asking a notoriously totalitarian regime that's in the middle of a mass incarceration of religious and ethnic minorities to "investigate" your political rival?

Very presidential, very conservative, so patriotic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

three senate democrats did the same exact thing, and you didn’t whine about it. which necessarily means that your outrage when trump did it, is selective and politically motivated, which necessarily means it’s also fake.

you’re embarrassing yourself. post some more heavily edited articles with everything deleted that helps trumps case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

they are just screaming loons...mad about everything...there's not much thinking involved

as bad a trump can be at times, he's still no where near as loathsome as the democrat cast of characters nipping his heels soooo....

Kavanaugh all over again...this is going to be fun!


"The whistleblower who filed a complaint against President Trump that now forms the center of an impeachment inquiry against him is a registered Democrat, according to a report from CNN."

nailed it. they say he’s threatening our democracy? it’s the democrats who use superdelegates in their primaries to ignore the will of the voters, its the democrats who are explicitly threatening to restructure the supreme court unless they rule in a way liberals find more agreeable ( so much for separation of powers), its the democrats who dedicated themselves to reversing the 2016 election from the moment that disgusting witch conceded, it’s democrats who constantly silence conservatives for having the temerity to attempt to speak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you’re embarrassing yourself.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

peto is determined

nailed it.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I know...right? :btu:

nailed it. they say he’s threatening our democracy? it’s the democrats who use superdelegates in their primaries to ignore the will of the voters, its the democrats who are explicitly threatening to restructure the supreme court unless they rule in a way liberals find more agreeable ( so much for separation of powers), its the democrats who dedicated themselves to reversing the 2016 election from the moment that disgusting witch conceded, it’s democrats who constantly silence conservatives for having the temerity to attempt to speak.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget eliminate the electoral college and allow minors and illegal immigrants to vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget eliminate the electoral college and allow minors and illegal immigrants to vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

and criminals

Text messages between US diplomats and a senior Ukrainian aide released by the House Intelligence Committee show how a potential Ukrainian investigation into the 2016 election was linked to a desired meeting between Ukrainian President and President Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Remember when private text messages between two FBI employees, publicly released devoid of context, became a full-blown scandal? Will be interesting to see if their partisan critics now call for nuance and context in interpreting the newly-released Ukraine scandal texts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing burger
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You seem to be under the impression that you've said something of substance here. Your opinion about what Trump thinks or knows or is remotely aware of has no substantial importance in this matter. All you've done here is evade the fact that what Trump requested was absolutely legitimate, and replaced that legitimacy with your sarcastic and uninformed opinion. And that is all you could do, in order to maintain some fictitious level of credibility for your previous ignorant comments and opinions.

You not only proclaim that Trump is totally clueless, but must think that the Secretary of State, Trump's lawyers, the State Dept., all Trump advisors, are also clueless. It is their business to know something as basic as to what is legal to do when asking for foreign assistance on ANY matter. These treaties are not some dusty old files hidden in some remote never looked at file. They are paid attention to on a continuing basis when any political or legal matter between countries must be addressed.

When the media sources that you, or the public in general, doesn't tell you what you don't know, you inherently assume there is nothing to know. However, those who expand the variety of media sources are more likely to be informed about things than those who are stuck on their one-sided sources which would rather you didn't know everything you need to know to fully understand an issue. This issue of treaties that allow what Trump asked is probably not discussed by the sources that you get your info from because they would rather that you didn't know and so keep you stuck on the notion that it is illegal or unconstitutional to ask foreign powers to "dig up dirt" on their opponents. That is the preferred level of discussion that gives some appearance of a reason for impeachment.

However, other more honest media have informed those of us who listen to them about the treaties and a great deal of other things that cast a whole different light on the issue.

So it is not that Trump is clueless. It is that you are. Not through any fault of your own, except that your sources are not helping you out.

Your claim that Trump "doesn’t listen to a single advisor who might know" is unsubstantiated nonsense. He has always surrounded himself with "experts" even in his business ventures. He sometimes disagrees with some of them, but he hears them all out. Other sources would have helped you to know some things about Trump that you don't, but your sources would rather that you believe he is all the various boogymen that they've planted in your head.

Your claim it’s a “fact” his request was legal and legit I believe is as wrong as you and the GOP spinning this as a nothing burger. The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain. The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't forget eliminate the electoral college and allow minors and illegal immigrants to vote
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Right! Do away with the electoral college as well.

Anything that doesn't guarantee liberal victory, can be jettisoned.

But Trump is an existential threat to our democracy.

Text messages between US diplomats and a senior Ukrainian aide released by the House Intelligence Committee show how a potential Ukrainian investigation into the 2016 election was linked to a desired meeting between Ukrainian President and President Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You lost a lot of credibility when posting what Taylor said, but not the rebuttal.

Your claim it’s a “fact” his request was legal and legit I believe is as wrong as you and the GOP spinning this as a nothing burger. The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain. The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No one has to prove Trumps request was legal. The democrats have to prove it wasn't legal.

"The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain"

I agree he's done that. My question is, when did that become unethical? Hilary wasn't using her office to get donations to her foundation? Obama didn't do that when he asked the Russians to postpone missile talks (talk about national security!) until after his re election? The Senate democrats didn't do that when they asked Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump?

Or can you just say out loud what we all know, that's it's only unethical when Trump does it?

I don't think what Trump did was "nothing". But I think it was nothing much more, than what they all do. Once again, we're going to hold him to a different standard, because he's the most vulgar person by far to ever hold that office.

he's the most vulgar person by far to ever hold that office.



I don't know...I heard LBJ was pretty bad

I don't know...I heard LBJ was pretty bad

True, but LBJ didn't have Twitter so it wasn't common knowledge.

The democrats liked his vulgarity when they assumed it would ensure a Hilary victory.

Suck it up and win the next election. Don't undermine the democracy just because they had no one at all, waiting to take over for Hilary as the viable candidate. God almighty what a freak show. I don't think Warren has a prayer. but I also didn't think Trump had a prayer, so what do I know...

We're going to hold him to a different standard, because he's the most vulgar person by far to ever hold that office.

We can agree on that one, but Obama delaying talks due to it being more productive for both parties after an election, is a far cry from Trump asking for help getting elected; which by the way is illegal. If Hilary won and was pulling this same crap, I'd back the republicans going after her for betraying her oath of office as well. The president CAN NOT seek foreign help to interfer or benefit, what is it about that which is not crystal clear to the GOP. I suspect while they remain silent, with only a few stating this is troubling, behind closed doors they are very concerned.

We The president CAN NOT seek foreign help to interfer or benefit, what is it about that which is not crystal clear to the GOP. I suspect while they remain silent, with only a few stating this is troubling, behind closed doors they are very concerned.

(1) show me where it says that a POTUS can't ask a foreign power for any favor or assistance which might benefit him politically.

(2) is the senate allowed to do that? Because 3 senate democrats asked Ukraine to investigate Manafort and Trump. Why was that OK?

What if Trump honestly, genuinely feels Biden did something seriously wrong in Ukraine? He can't ask them to investigate, because Biden is a political adversary? So anyone who is running against a sitting POTUS, has blanket immunity in other countries to do whatever they want?

Obama delaying talks due to it being more productive for both parties after an election, is a far cry from Trump asking for help getting elected; .

If you listen to what Obama said, it's reasonable to infer that he was worried that what he and the Russians had in mind, might have hurt his chances of getting re elected, so he asked them to wait until after his last election. Because once he was no longer answerable to us, he's have "more flexibility" to go along with what the Russians wanted to do.

It's not exactly the same as what Trump did. But it's not a stretch, to say that Obama asked a foreign power to delay missile talks because it would help him get elected.

You really think they don't all do this? As Detbuch said, if Trump gets a great trade deal with China, that will help him get re elected. So is he not allowed to pursue that?

I don't think that investigating Biden, when there's that much evidence of corruption, is "interfering" with the election. Knowing more facts about what took place, improves our ability to make an informed vote, it doesn't interfere with it.

How about it’s a federal crime to seek and accept foreign help?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about it’s a federal crime to seek and accept foreign help?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see.

So when the Hilary campaign paid big money for Brits and Russians to make up dirt about Carter Page, and then the Obama Justice Department specifically used that crap to invade his privacy, that was......???

I see.

So when the Hilary campaign paid big money for Brits and Russians to make up dirt about Carter Page, and then the Obama Justice Department specifically used that crap to invade his privacy, that was......???

Whataboutism again, come on your party had it's chance and if there was a similar wrong doing, well again; to bad you guys dropped the ball. NOTHING any past president or candidate compares to the lengths this clown will go to gain personal wealth or an advantage in the upcoming election, you know that to be true.

Whataboutism again, come on your party had it's chance and if there was a similar wrong doing, well again; to bad you guys dropped the ball. NOTHING any past president or candidate compares to the lengths this clown will go to gain personal wealth or an advantage in the upcoming election, you know that to be true.

GS:!its a crime to ask foreigners for help and receive it

Jim: what about when hilary and obama did it?

GS: that’s whataboutism.

so i can never challenge your notion that trump committed a crime, by pointing to others who got away with similar actions?

interesting way to avoid having to defend yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Whataboutism again, come on your party had it's chance and if there was a similar wrong doing, well again; to bad you guys dropped the ball. NOTHING any past president or candidate compares to the lengths this clown will go to gain personal wealth or an advantage in the upcoming election, you know that to be true.

you’re also saying that the issue is t that trump does these things, but that he does them more often than his predecessors.

where is it written that there’s a maximum number? what’s that number?

and we didn’t miss our chance with what they did to carter page, maybe you haven’t heard, but a us attorney is almost done looking into it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

GS:!its a crime to ask foreigners for help and receive it

Jim: what about when hilary and obama did it?

GS: that’s whataboutism.

so i can never challenge your notion that trump committed a crime, by pointing to others who got away with similar actions?

interesting way to avoid having to defend yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When you run out of lies you claim Whataboutism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think that investigating Biden, when there's that much evidence of corruption, is "interfering" with the election. Knowing more facts about what took place, improves our ability to make an informed vote, it doesn't interfere with it.
Show us the evidence Jim.

When you run out of lies you claim Whataboutism.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right. it’s literally saying, you got me, and i don’t want to discuss this
anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Show us the evidence Jim.

hunter got filthy rich at a job he had zero qualifications for, except that his daddy was (1) the VP, (2) the US point person for the same country that employed Hunter ( what a coincidence), and (3) daddy helped fire a prosecutor that might have been looking at this company, (4) it’s reported that john
kerry’s stepson ended his investment partnership with hunter, because he wasn’t comfortable with what hunter was doing in ukraine.

ever heard of circumstantial evidence? sure you have, but only when it applies to republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see.

So when the Hilary campaign paid big money for Brits and Russians to make up dirt about Carter Page, and then the Obama Justice Department specifically used that crap to invade his privacy, that was......???

the Republicans originally started it — dirt on Donald Trump, those are the facts.

you push so much fake information. And deny transcripts written words and audio . But repeat over and over false claims and debunked stories its astonishing.. for you truth isn't truth.. Truth its just an inconvenience
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the Republicans originally started it — dirt on Donald Trump, those are the facts.

you push so much fake information. And deny transcripts written words and audio . But repeat over and over false claims and debunked stories its astonishing.. for you truth isn't truth.. Truth its just an inconvenience
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

ok you tell me what’s fake here...

team hilary paid brit’s and russians to dig up dirt on carter page.

the obama administrations justice department used that dirt as part of multiple FISA warrants against page.

if it matters, page has never been charged.

you tell us what’s false there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your claim it’s a “fact” his request was legal and legit I believe is as wrong as you and the GOP spinning this as a nothing burger.

The fact is that the chief executive of a country, or his executive branch legal apparatus, such as the DOJ, or personal legal representatives have the right by treaty to ask the chief executive of a foreign country to assist in determining, in an ongoing investigation of corruption, if any illegal or criminal or corrupt acts occurred either by that countries legal apparatus, or by any American citizens in coordination with that country in regard to the investigation. It is a fact that Trump asked for such assistance. Whether he did so in order to interfere with our coming election is the charge in dispute. That charge is an assumption not a fact. It would have to be proved that he made the request for the specific intention to sway the election, and to disprove that the request was for assistance in an ongoing investigation. That would be very difficult to prove beyond speculation.

The only fact at this point is that he made the request as the Chief executive officer, and it was perfectly, as such, legal for him to do so.

The man has proven he has no issues past, present or future in enlisting foreign powers to interfere in our democracy and elections for personal gain.

Actually, that was not proven by the Mueller investigation, your opinion notwithstanding.

The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.


Yes, and it is a fact that Congress can abuse that means. It all finally comes down not necessarily to the merits or facts of the case, but to the number of votes.

The “fact” is that is exactly why the founding fathers gave congress a means to remove a president who is abusing his power.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yeah, I don't think they could have possibly anticipated the lunatics currently on the democrat side of congress wielding such means

ok you tell me what’s fake here...

team hilary paid brit’s and russians to dig up dirt on carter page.

the obama administrations justice department used that dirt as part of multiple FISA warrants against page.

if it matters, page has never been charged.

you tell us what’s false there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You actually believe all thoses investigation were based on manufactured information.. of course you do.. again with zero evidence to support your claim.. shocking .. yet here we have Trumps transcript and him asking the Chinese for help.. and you bring up carter page.. who was just investigated ... no jail no false imprisonment thats how investigations work..

TRUMP claims he has the right as potus to look into corruption and ask other country's to help.. thats rich seeing he only cared after he got caught and Biden poll numbers...

Defense contractors ask why their contracts wernt being paid. Congress we didnt stop anything... the white house stopped them secretly ... why would they do that?? But we know why.. some of use refuse to connect the dots
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The exchanges show a senior diplomat saying it would be "crazy" to withhold military aid to Ukraine for Mr Trump's political gain in the 2020 election.

US law bans soliciting foreign help for electoral purposes. Must just be another liberal plant out to delegitimize the election
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

US law bans soliciting foreign help for electoral purposes.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he was doing his job rooting out corruption and "draining the swamp"...we wouldn't be talking about this if the obama administration and the democrats weren't so corrupt

hunter got filthy rich at a job he had zero qualifications for, except that his daddy was (1) the VP, (2) the US point person for the same country that employed Hunter ( what a coincidence), and (3) daddy helped fire a prosecutor that might have been looking at this company, (4) it’s reported that john
kerry’s stepson ended his investment partnership with hunter, because he wasn’t comfortable with what hunter was doing in ukraine.

ever heard of circumstantial evidence? sure you have, but only when it applies to republicans.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's more like a conspiracy theory. I've still never seen a shred of anything that shows Hunter Biden did anything wrong other than poor judgement to take a job that could be seen as a conflict of interest.

And the Biden leverage to fire the prosecutor was bi-partisan and supported by most of Europe. Burisma wasn't even under investigation at the time.

There's no there there.

ok you tell me what’s fake here...

team hilary paid brit’s and russians to dig up dirt on carter page.
Actually the DNC hired a US law firm who hired a former British spy. Never heard anything about payments to Russians.

the obama administrations justice department used that dirt as part of multiple FISA warrants against page.
Who was suspected of being a Russian agent, and approved by Republican appointed judges, sure go along...

if it matters, page has never been charged.
It doesn't matter. Not all investigations result in charges.

you tell us what’s false there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pretty much all of it.

one of the funniest things I've read in all of this was Hunter Biden, after getting 50 G's a month for his "expertise" and getting 1.5 billion in investment cash from the commie chinese for his start up investment firm....said in an interview that he lives paycheck to paycheck :jester:

one of the funniest things I've read in all of this was Hunter Biden, after getting 50 G's a month for his "expertise" and getting 1.5 billion in investment cash from the commie chinese for his start up investment firm....said in an interview that he lives paycheck to paycheck :jester:
Read the actual interview.

It's more like a conspiracy theory. I've still never seen a shred of anything that shows Hunter Biden did anything wrong other than poor judgement to take a job that could be seen as a conflict of interest.

And the Biden leverage to fire the prosecutor was bi-partisan and supported by most of Europe. Burisma wasn't even under investigation at the time.

There's no there there.

Have you seen a shred of anything that you would consider a reason for hiring Biden. I am guessing you would consider him overqualified...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually the DNC hired a US law firm who hired a former British spy. Never heard anything about payments to Russians.


Who was suspected of being a Russian agent, and approved by Republican appointed judges, sure go along...


It doesn't matter. Not all investigations result in charges.


Pretty much all of it.

"Who was suspected of being a Russian agent,"

And part of the suspicion, since they used it to get the FISA warrant, was the Steele dossier, prepared by foreigners to help Hilary get elected. Which Got Stripers said clearly, was a crime.

"approved by Republican appointed judges'

who were never told that a knew piece of evidence in support of the FISA warrant, was opposition research paid for by the opposing campaign. Funny that they, and you, left that out. How come you left that part out?

"Not all investigations result in charges"

No one said they always result in charges. But when they don't result in charges, that person is legally innocent. Correct?

"Pretty much all of it"

You agreed that Hilary paid a foreigner to help her win an election in this country.

You agreed that dossier was used to get a FISA warrant on Page.

You agreed Page wasn't charged.

Sounds like most of it was spot on, snowflake.

Have you seen a shred of anything that you would consider a reason for hiring Biden. I am guessing you would consider him overqualified...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Good executive experience, lobbyist, investor, high profile. Burisma at the time was trying to look more like a western firm to distance from their past. One of Biden's former investment partners was hired by the board as well.

Can you see a shred of evidence for putting Jared Kushner in charge of anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can you see a shred of evidence for putting Jared Kushner in charge of anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But that's not whataboutism?

P.S., before the election, he ran Kushner Companies, Observer Media, and founded an online real estate investment platform. And unlike Hunter, never got caught snorting cocaine. Nice try.

Can you see a shred of evidence for putting Jared Kushner in charge of anything?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And here's what former Google CEO said about him...

"According to former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who worked on technology for Hillary Clinton's campaign), Kushner's role in the 2016 election was its biggest surprise. Schmidt told Forbes, "Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources."[63] Federal Election Commission filings indicate the Trump campaign spent $343 million, about 59 percent as much as the Clinton campaign.["

Kushner ran the campaign...remind me Pete, how did that turn out?

Good executive experience, lobbyist, investor, high profile. Burisma at the time was trying to look more like a western firm to distance from their past. One of Biden's former investment partners was hired by the board as well.

OK. This proves you're just trolling.

And here's what former Google CEO said about him...

"According to former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who worked on technology for Hillary Clinton's campaign), Kushner's role in the 2016 election was its biggest surprise. Schmidt told Forbes, "Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources."[63] Federal Election Commission filings indicate the Trump campaign spent $343 million, about 59 percent as much as the Clinton campaign.["

Kushner ran the campaign...remind me Pete, how did that turn out?
💥
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And here's what former Google CEO said about him...

"According to former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who worked on technology for Hillary Clinton's campaign), Kushner's role in the 2016 election was its biggest surprise. Schmidt told Forbes, "Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources."[63] Federal Election Commission filings indicate the Trump campaign spent $343 million, about 59 percent as much as the Clinton campaign.["

Kushner ran the campaign...remind me Pete, how did that turn out?

weren't we told no experience obama would be a good president because he managed a campaign? pretty sure I remember that

Read the actual interview.

Hunter Biden had been employed as a consultant to the Delaware bank MBNA, with a $100,000-a-year retainer, according to the New York Times. The bank hired him fresh out of law school and in less than two years promoted him to senior vice president. MBNA a banking holding company based in Delaware, which was one of the largest donors to his father’s campaigns. At the age of twenty-six, Hunter, who was earning more than a hundred thousand dollars and had received a signing bonus, was making nearly as much money as his father. In January, 1998, the conservative reporter and columnist Byron York wrote, in The American Spectator, “Certainly lots of children of influential parents end up in very good jobs. But the Biden case is troubling. After all, this is a senator who for years has sermonized against what he says is the corrupting influence of money in politics.”

Hunter, by then an executive vice-president at MBNA, found the corporate culture stifling. “If you forgot to wear your MBNA lapel pin, someone would stop you in the halls,” he recalled. In 1998, he contacted William Oldaker, a Washington lawyer who had worked on his father’s Presidential campaign in 1987, for advice about how to get a job in the Clinton Administration. Oldaker called William Daley, the Commerce Secretary, who had also worked on Biden’s campaign. Daley, the son of the five-term mayor of Chicago, told me that, because of their shared experience growing up in political families, he empathized with Hunter, and asked his staff to evaluate him for a position as a policy director specializing in the burgeoning Internet economy. Hunter got the job, then sold the Delaware house for roughly twice what he’d paid for it and moved his family to a rental home in the Tenleytown neighborhood of Washington. Hunter and Kathleen sent Naomi and Finnegan—and later Maisy, who was born in 2000—to Sidwell Friends, one of Washington’s most exclusive and expensive schools. Hunter’s salary barely covered the rent, the school fees, and his family’s living expenses.

Late Summer 2006: Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden, purchase the hedge fund Paradigm Global Advisors. According to an unnamed executive quoted in Politico in August, James Biden declared to employees on his first day, “Don’t worry about investors. We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.” At this time, Joe Biden is months away from becoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second bid for president.

The unnamed executive who spoke to Politico charged that the purchase of the fund was designed to work around campaign-finance laws:

According to the executive, James Biden made it clear that he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

December 4, 2013: Hunter Biden joins his father on Air Force Two on a trip to China, where his father is meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Hunter arranges for Li to shake hands with his father in the lobby of the American delegation’s hotel. Afterward, Hunter and Li have what both parties describe as a social meeting.

According to The New Yorker, at this time other Obama-administration officials weren’t comfortable with Hunter Biden’s business ties in China, but they did not confront the vice president about the matter:

Hunter’s meeting with Li and his relationship with BHR attracted little attention at the time, but some of Biden’s advisers were worried that Hunter, by meeting with a business associate during his father’s visit, would expose the Vice-President to criticism. The former senior White House aide told me that Hunter’s behavior invited questions about whether he “was leveraging access for his benefit, which just wasn’t done in that White House. Optics really mattered, and that seemed to be cutting it pretty close, even if nothing nefarious was going on.” When I asked members of Biden’s staff whether they discussed their concerns with the Vice-President, several of them said that they had been too intimidated to do so. “Everyone who works for him has been screamed at,” a former adviser told me.

December 2013: “Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China,” author and investigator Peter Schweizer says. “The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president.


April 2014: Hunter Biden joins the board of Burisma Holdings. Biden’s primary duty is to attend board meetings and energy forums in Europe once or twice a year, and he is paid $50,000 per month.

Apter added, “This is totally based on merit.”

December 2016: Biden meets the Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming. As CNN described, “at its height, Ye’s company, CEFC China Energy, aligned itself so closely with the Chinese government that it was often hard to distinguish between the two.”

May 2017: Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming and Hunter Biden meet privately at a hotel in Miami. Biden says he offered to use his contacts to help “identify investment opportunities for Ye’s company CEFC China Energy, in liquified natural gas projects in the United States.” After the dinner, Ye sends a 2.8-carat diamond to Hunter’s hotel room with a card thanking him for the meeting.

July 1, 2019: “I’ve pretty much always lived paycheck to paycheck,” Hunter told me. “I never considered it struggling, but it has always been a high-wire act.”

read all of these

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/hunter-biden-comprehensive-timeline/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

Hunter Biden had been employed as a consultant to the Delaware bank MBNA, with a $100,000-a-year retainer, according to the New York Times. The bank hired him fresh out of law school and in less than two years promoted him to senior vice president. MBNA a banking holding company based in Delaware, which was one of the largest donors to his father’s campaigns. At the age of twenty-six, Hunter, who was earning more than a hundred thousand dollars and had received a signing bonus, was making nearly as much money as his father. In January, 1998, the conservative reporter and columnist Byron York wrote, in The American Spectator, “Certainly lots of children of influential parents end up in very good jobs. But the Biden case is troubling. After all, this is a senator who for years has sermonized against what he says is the corrupting influence of money in politics.”

Hunter, by then an executive vice-president at MBNA, found the corporate culture stifling. “If you forgot to wear your MBNA lapel pin, someone would stop you in the halls,” he recalled. In 1998, he contacted William Oldaker, a Washington lawyer who had worked on his father’s Presidential campaign in 1987, for advice about how to get a job in the Clinton Administration. Oldaker called William Daley, the Commerce Secretary, who had also worked on Biden’s campaign. Daley, the son of the five-term mayor of Chicago, told me that, because of their shared experience growing up in political families, he empathized with Hunter, and asked his staff to evaluate him for a position as a policy director specializing in the burgeoning Internet economy. Hunter got the job, then sold the Delaware house for roughly twice what he’d paid for it and moved his family to a rental home in the Tenleytown neighborhood of Washington. Hunter and Kathleen sent Naomi and Finnegan—and later Maisy, who was born in 2000—to Sidwell Friends, one of Washington’s most exclusive and expensive schools. Hunter’s salary barely covered the rent, the school fees, and his family’s living expenses.

Late Summer 2006: Hunter Biden and his uncle, James Biden, purchase the hedge fund Paradigm Global Advisors. According to an unnamed executive quoted in Politico in August, James Biden declared to employees on his first day, “Don’t worry about investors. We’ve got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden.” At this time, Joe Biden is months away from becoming chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and launching his second bid for president.

The unnamed executive who spoke to Politico charged that the purchase of the fund was designed to work around campaign-finance laws:

According to the executive, James Biden made it clear that he viewed the fund as a way to take money from rich foreigners who could not legally give money to his older brother or his campaign account. “We’ve got investors lined up in a line of 747s filled with cash ready to invest in this company,” the executive remembers James Biden saying.

December 4, 2013: Hunter Biden joins his father on Air Force Two on a trip to China, where his father is meeting with Chinese president Xi Jinping. Hunter arranges for Li to shake hands with his father in the lobby of the American delegation’s hotel. Afterward, Hunter and Li have what both parties describe as a social meeting.

According to The New Yorker, at this time other Obama-administration officials weren’t comfortable with Hunter Biden’s business ties in China, but they did not confront the vice president about the matter:

Hunter’s meeting with Li and his relationship with BHR attracted little attention at the time, but some of Biden’s advisers were worried that Hunter, by meeting with a business associate during his father’s visit, would expose the Vice-President to criticism. The former senior White House aide told me that Hunter’s behavior invited questions about whether he “was leveraging access for his benefit, which just wasn’t done in that White House. Optics really mattered, and that seemed to be cutting it pretty close, even if nothing nefarious was going on.” When I asked members of Biden’s staff whether they discussed their concerns with the Vice-President, several of them said that they had been too intimidated to do so. “Everyone who works for him has been screamed at,” a former adviser told me.

December 2013: “Less than two weeks later, Hunter Biden’s firm inked a $1 billion private equity deal with a subsidiary of the Chinese government’s Bank of China,” author and investigator Peter Schweizer says. “The deal was later expanded to $1.5 billion. In short, the Chinese government funded a business that it co-owned along with the son of a sitting vice president.


April 2014: Hunter Biden joins the board of Burisma Holdings. Biden’s primary duty is to attend board meetings and energy forums in Europe once or twice a year, and he is paid $50,000 per month.

Apter added, “This is totally based on merit.”

December 2016: Biden meets the Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming. As CNN described, “at its height, Ye’s company, CEFC China Energy, aligned itself so closely with the Chinese government that it was often hard to distinguish between the two.”

May 2017: Chinese energy tycoon Ye Jianming and Hunter Biden meet privately at a hotel in Miami. Biden says he offered to use his contacts to help “identify investment opportunities for Ye’s company CEFC China Energy, in liquified natural gas projects in the United States.” After the dinner, Ye sends a 2.8-carat diamond to Hunter’s hotel room with a card thanking him for the meeting.

July 1, 2019: “I’ve pretty much always lived paycheck to paycheck,” Hunter told me. “I never considered it struggling, but it has always been a high-wire act.”

read all of these

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/08/02/joe-biden-investigation-hunter-brother-hedge-fund-money-2020-campaign-227407

https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/09/hunter-biden-comprehensive-timeline/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/08/will-hunter-biden-jeopardize-his-fathers-campaign

but he is not the issue is he.. What Trump has done is the issue.

Every thing you posted is irrelevant to the topic ..and is the party line deflection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but he is not the issue is he.. What Trump has done is the issue.

Every thing you posted is irrelevant to the topic ..and is the party line deflection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

good answer :kewl: classic...it's good to be a dirty democrat

And here's what former Google CEO said about him...

"According to former Google CEO Eric Schmidt (who worked on technology for Hillary Clinton's campaign), Kushner's role in the 2016 election was its biggest surprise. Schmidt told Forbes, "Best I can tell, he actually ran the campaign and did it with essentially no resources."[63] Federal Election Commission filings indicate the Trump campaign spent $343 million, about 59 percent as much as the Clinton campaign.["

Kushner ran the campaign...remind me Pete, how did that turn out?
Your all set then, he’s running the impeachment war room
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the day after trump is re-elected is going to be epic

Your all set then, he’s running the impeachment war room
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you asked why anyone would put him in charge of
anything. i replied in a way that made your question look very ignorant and silly. that’s your fault, not mine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

the day after trump is re-elected is going to be epic

if he does ( remember how accurate i was last time?) it will surely be epic.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

weren't we told no experience obama would be a good president because he managed a campaign? pretty sure I remember that

don’t forget he was a community organizer. in chicago of all places, and we all know what a superbly organized community THAT is.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That guy had zero experience running anything so in that context he did fine.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but he is not the issue is he.. What Trump has done is the issue.

Every thing you posted is irrelevant to the topic ..and is the party line deflection
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He didn't even respond to the interview he quoted.