Mueller was investigating Cohen on the subject of Ukrainian money going to Trump coffers in early 2017, presumably with the aim of pushing Trump policy via impeachable bribery (with a middleman). Now Cohen is headed to NYC to talk to prosecutors. Want to bet it's Ukraine-related?
We'll soon learn that related to the above is deeply conflicted Trump lawyers Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing suddenly picking up Manafort partner Dmitry Firtash as a client. And Michael/Mark Mukasey, heads up—you should've followed conflict-of-interest guidelines, too.
The trajectory of the Trump-Ukraine scandal is like a heat-seeking missile that's travelled out many miles and is now slowly curving back—in a gloriously long arc—to move with supersonic speed toward the man behind this scandal, indeed all the scandals...

...Vladimir Putin.

Putin was paying Firtash funny money—money for no evident purpose—as Firtash was working to aid Manafort-protecting Ukrainian prosecutors and attack Joe Biden. And now Firtash shares a lawyer with...

...let me see here...

...oh, yeah: Trump.

Get ready for the next flash: The 5,000 ways the Salem Witches weren't guilty but Trump sure as #^&#^&#^&#^& is.

After Trump Call, Ukraine's Zelenskiy Gambles On Russia Peace Push Without U.S. Help

Funny how that works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Former Ukraine Amb. Yovanovitch says she was informed by a top State Dept. official that she was removed under a “concerted campaign against me … as best as I can tell, on unfounded and false claims by people with clearly questionable motives.”

Here is her opening statement


https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1888-yovanovitch-opening-statement/48cf6b834149b4867fb5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

When have we heard something like this before?

"You'll have to ask Rudy"



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG0Quq36c5s

Can't wait until they depose Pompeo, he has a lot of explaining to do.

Rudy is in deep #^&#^&#^&#^& also.

Follow the money.

hey, did you hear that the anonymous whistleblower is getting death threats? :huh::hihi:

Oops! Looks like someone isn't going to lie to save the cheeto emperor

President Trump's ambassador to the European Union (EU), Gordon Sondland, plans to tell Congress this week that a text he sent denying understanding of quid pro quo between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky in a July phone call in July was dictated by Trump himself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Soviet-born Lev Parnas, who says (WP) he met Trump "several" times before the 2016 election and came to "admire" him, began working with the Trump Org around 1987—the year Trump first went to the Soviet Union in a trip reports say the KGB set up.
Lev Parnas was born in 1965/1966, and says he returned to the Soviet Union after selling Trump Organization condos while Fred Trump was running the Trump Organization. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991; that places Parnas's work for the Trumps somewhere between 1987 and 1990.
So the KGB develops an interest in Trump right as a Soviet-born man who brags about his connections to "Russian money" begins working with the Trump Organization selling condos... despite no apparent interest in real estate? And Parnas meets Trump "several times" pre-election?
Man, can you imagine how crazy it'd be if Parnas had ties to organized crime? ... for instance, by being "financed" by Soviet-born Dmytro Firtash, who has conceded his entire business empire is based on largesse from Putin friend and international gangster Semion Mogilevich?
Has Trump been a Russian asset since 1987? No. Has he been someone Russian intelligence and organized crime—linked entities—have believed since 1987 they could work with profitably to advance both Trump's interests and their own? Yes. Has it happened? Via intermediaries, yes.
We already have Trump lying about how well he knows Parnas. We have Giuliani lying about Parnas. We have Parnas wrapped up in various ties with Manafort, Firtash, Sater, Fred Trump...we've seen this pattern before. Lies surrounding myriad contacts with Soviet-born persons.
Yes, there was a damning phone call with Zelensky that was the culmination of many months of work by Parnas and Giuliani. But Parnas has been part of this story for over three decades.
Robert Perreira may have thought Parnas was meeting Trump for the first time when Parnas was at an exclusive fundraiser for Trump weeks before the 2016 election. We now know that's not true—indeed, that it's not even *close* to true—though Perreira couldn't have known it then.
It has been established that Putin was paying Firtash insane amounts of funny money; we now know Firtash was spending some of his money bankrolling Parnas. It's pretty clear now that Parnas isn't who we thought he was—and his mission wasn't small-time commercial scams.
The final "deliverable" to be taken from Parnas's work with Trump and Trump's legal team was that Russia would be absolved of attacking America in 2016, Trump would be free to end all sanctions on Russia, and Russia would be primed to attack America again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

this is great..

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) revealed in a new interview that House Democrats have discussed jailing allies of the president who do not comply with congressional subpoenas, an escalation of the House's efforts to force White House compliance with an impeachment inquiry.

Tlaib told Deadline Detroit that such an action, known as inherent contempt, would be "uncharted territory" for Congress but added that "serious discussions" about taking the step have occurred within the Democratic caucus.

this is great..

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) revealed in a new interview that House Democrats have discussed jailing allies of the president who do not comply with congressional subpoenas, an escalation of the House's efforts to force White House compliance with an impeachment inquiry.

Tlaib told Deadline Detroit that such an action, known as inherent contempt, would be "uncharted territory" for Congress but added that "serious discussions" about taking the step have occurred within the Democratic caucus.

That is not uncharted territory. A Clinton era person was jailed for over a year for not cooperating in the whitewater investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not uncharted territory. A Clinton era person was jailed for over a year for not cooperating in the whitewater investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

she refused to answer questions for a grand jury so it's very different than refusing to testify for the democrat nuts in congress and their kangaroo sham court but you should be smart enough to know that

she refused to answer questions for a grand jury so it's very different than refusing to testify for the democrat nuts in congress and their kangaroo sham court but you should be smart enough to know that

Boy you have the Trump narrative down pat, Congress has the right to call these witnesses in for testimony, if this is a nothing burger as you claim, why refuse to cooperate? Love the right scramble to reach agreement on the narrative, but Scott you clearly are waiting for the right talking points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy you have the Trump narrative down pat, Congress has the right to call these witnesses in for testimony, if this is a nothing burger as you claim, why refuse to cooperate? Love the right scramble to reach agreement on the narrative, but Scott you clearly are waiting for the right talking points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes...I knew the talking points to use before he even wrote that...I'm:claps: amazing

he was completely wrong with his lightning quick talking points but don't let that figure in to your reasoning :doh:

trump should make this as difficult as possible for the corrupt, deranged democrats....and it will be more fun that way too

There you go repeating the second great taking point, so funny to hear the MOST corrupt president and administration call the Democrats corrupt for congress doing its job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes...I knew the talking points to use before he even wrote that...I'm:claps: amazing

he was completely wrong with his lightning quick talking points but don't let that figure in to your reasoning :doh:

trump should make this as difficult as possible for the corrupt, deranged democrats....and it will be more fun that way too

Do you think there are no corrupt deranged republicans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you think there are no corrupt deranged republicans ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

maybe but they aren't bothering anyone

There you go repeating the second great taking point, so funny to hear the MOST corrupt president and administration call the Democrats corrupt for congress doing its job.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, it was second on my list of talking points

maybe but they aren't bothering anyone

Maybe??? Come on now. Think harder. Stop sniffing the restoration glue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe??? Come on now. Think harder. Stop sniffing the restoration glue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Have you noticed both Scott, SD are getting really short and tense these days?

Probably that small motel6 room they are sharing, bringing new Trumplicans into the world is hard work.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you noticed both Scott, SD are getting really short and tense these days?

Actually, the troll job they are doing on you guys is epic, you guys are like a blitzing school of blues snapping at everything they are tossing at you. It's really quite amusing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, the troll job they are doing on you guys is epic, you guys are like a blitzing school of blues snapping at everything they are tossing at you. It's really quite amusing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just get a slick and they start biting for us. Wait til there is bait tossed in. Silly liberal fools!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually, the troll job they are doing on you guys is epic, you guys are like a blitzing school of blues snapping at everything they are tossing at you. It's really quite amusing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Just like her emails and benghazzziiiiii
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like her emails and benghazzziiiiii
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Find 1 post I made regarding that crap and I buy one of your bowls or bees. Promise
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe???

Ok. You name one and then I’ll name one. It will be like words with friends
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you noticed both Scott, SD are getting really short and tense these days?

Yes. Three beer tense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have you noticed both Scott, SD are getting really short and tense these days?

Jeff,while your confidence has been restored would you care to wager ( a donation to the site) that Trump wins in 2020? Surely it is a worthy cause,please name the amount and we are on. Any other #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s want in and I will cover it. Or, just keep squawking.... ANY person wishing to have a “fun”bet can enter within 48 hours👍🏿

Perhaps that gives you some insight into my anxiety.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes. Three beer tense
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I was going to include Jim but decided I didn't want to rattle him.

Jeff,while your confidence has been restored would you care to wager ( a donation to the site) that Trump wins in 2020? Surely it is a worthy cause,please name the amount and we are on. Any other #^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&s want in and I will cover it. Or, just keep squawking.... ANY person wishing to have a “fun”bet can enter within 48 hours👍🏿

Perhaps that gives you some insight into my anxiety.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
For this site I’m in pledging $100 that Trump loses in 2020, if he makes it that far.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

For this site I’m in pledging $100 that Trump loses in 2020, if he makes it that far.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'll do a hundred.

Just like her emails and benghazzziiiiii
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it was Bengiza??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll do a hundred.

Ok boys come on man up, Jim, Scott and RR, cover the wager.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll do a hundred.

I got it and GS Libby. Short enough for u?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok boys come on man up, Jim, Scott and RR, cover the wager.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I put it out there big spender. I will cover your life savings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I put it out there big spender. I will cover your life savings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Have many charities yet to cover in my retirement, others will bump this up to a decent wager and help the site, but gee wiz an insult what a shocker. My god you are so pathetically predictable, change it up you are getting so boring.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought it was Bengiza??
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"you say bengiza...I say bengaza....bengiza, bengaza ....bengiza, bengaza....let's blow the whole thing up" :hihi:

I put it out there big spender. I will cover your life savings.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DJIA up 319 at last check :scream:

Fiona Hill testified that John Bolton had big problems with Rudy Giuliani's Ukraine campaign and told her to raise it with White House lawyers. Bolton specifically said “I am not part of whatever drug deal Rudy and Mulvaney are cooking up”.

I've seen some funny comments on this:

This plot twist, where John Bolton turns out to be the good guy, really strains the credibility of this entire season.

The part where the writers have Bolton accuse someone else of being a hand grenade is ironic genius.

If Bolton winds up being the whistleblower, I'll take back everything I've said about this season's lazy writing.

Fiona Hill testified that



didn't she testify in private hearings behind closed doors?

didn't she testify in private hearings behind closed doors?

Gym Jordan apparently isn't upset, he tweeted: "Rep Adam Schiff is conducting his secretive impeachment proceedings in the basement of the Capitol, and now he’s kicked Rep Matt Gaetz out of today’s deposition. This testimony should be available to every member of Congress and every single American. What is Schiff hiding?"

Welcome to Washington and modern palace intrigue, we get to watch a dam break. Can't wait for obviously Deep State John Bolton

In a closed-door session that lasted roughly 10 hours, Fiona Hill told lawmakers that she confronted Gordon Sondland about Giuliani’s activities which, she testified, were not coordinated with the officials responsible for carrying out U.S. foreign policy.

Fiona Hill told House impeachment investigators that she had at least two meetings with NSC lawyer John Eisenberg about Rudy Giuliani’s Ukraine efforts, according to a person with direct knowledge of her testimony. Both meetings were at the urging of Bolton.

Fiona Hill describes this scene:

In a White House meeting, Sondland tells Ukrainians they will get a Trump meeting if they open the investigations Trump wants. Then, Sondland follows the Ukrainians out of the meeting to privately make clear he's talking about Hunter Biden.

Trump's former top Russia adviser Fiona Hill alleged that acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland, and Rudy Giuliani were running a "rogue operation" in Ukraine that sought to bypass official channels to benefit Trump politically.

And on Tuesday, a senior State Department official, George Kent, appeared on Capitol Hill to testify about his knowledge of the episode despite an attempt by Trump administration lawyers to block him, according to a source working on the impeachment inquiry. The House Intelligence Committee issued a subpoena for his testimony Tuesday morning, and Kent, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, complied.

On Wednesday, Michael McKinley, who abruptly resigned last week as a top aide to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, intends to testify before lawmakers.

On Thursday, lawmakers are expected to hear from Gordon Sondland, the EU ambassador whose text messages revealed by lawmakers indicated he was aware of efforts to pressure Ukrainian officials to investigate Biden. Sondland is reportedly ready to deflect any blame onto Trump about whether there was any quid pro quo involving military aid to Ukraine or a meeting between Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart in Washington.

Congressional investigators on Friday will hear from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Laura Cooper, who oversees Russia- and Ukraine-related matters at the Pentagon.

Mulvaney appears to confirm Ukraine aid was contingent upon probe into 2016 election

White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged Thursday that U.S. military funds to Ukraine were previously withheld at least in part because of a desire to have the Eastern European nation investigate unfounded allegations that foreign countries may have aided Democrats

another attempt to muddy the waters

Mulvaney appears to confirm

another attempt to muddy the waters

yup

Mulvaney appears to confirm Ukraine aid was contingent upon probe into 2016 election

White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney acknowledged Thursday that U.S. military funds to Ukraine were previously withheld at least in part because of a desire to have the Eastern European nation investigate unfounded allegations that foreign countries may have aided Democrats

another attempt to muddy the waters

I’m pretty sure everyone already knew that, even if the GOP party line if a microphone is put in their face, there was no QPQ.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mulvaney knows Nixon’s Chief of Staff went to jail.
If he admits that what happened is illegal the jigs up, it’s over and he’s indicted
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are the democraps going to impeach trump for "quid pro quo" and then elect "quid pro joe" president? :kewl: that would be classic democrap

are the democraps going to impeach trump for "quid pro quo" and then elect "quid pro joe" president? :kewl: that would be classic democrap

It’s like Mulvaney says and then tries to unsay

Get over it

Apparently that’s now how the Constitution works
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

are the democraps going to impeach trump for "quid pro quo" and then elect "quid pro joe" president? :kewl: that would be classic democrap

SCOTT one actually happened.. the other only happened in your mind .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

SCOTT one actually happened.. the other only happened in your mind .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


you know Biden is on tape bragging about it right? Biden got the prosecutor fired...just ask him...What did trump get for his supposed "quid pro quo"?

you know Biden is on tape bragging about it right? Biden got the prosecutor fired...just ask him...What did trump get for his supposed "quid pro quo"?

And you know that the full US govern. wanted the pros. gone.

And you know that the full US govern. wanted the pros. gone.

Biden wanted him gone to protect his crack head kid(otherwise there is a hell of a lot of coincidence involved there)...

so if a democrat actually gets a quid pro quo that's ok

if a republican talks about what democrats can construe as a possible quid pro quo.... that's impeachable

you people are nuts

you know Biden is on tape bragging about it right? Biden got the prosecutor fired...just ask him...What did trump get for his supposed "quid pro quo"?

Mulvaney claimed yesterday that Trumps quid pro quo is SOP

Here is a Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Biden, and Ukrainegate.

The timeline if you look at the link continues to current time and details the involvement of others after Biden

April 2014 – Russian and pro-Russian forces invade the regions of Donetsk and Luhansk in eastern Ukraine, starting a war that continues today and has killed more than 13,000 people.

April 2014 – Hunter Biden joins Ukrainian firm Burisma

Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, joins the board of Burisma Holdings, controlled by Mykola Zlochevskiy, who had served as a Cabinet minister under former pro-Russian Presidents Leonid Kuchma and Yanukovych. Both administrations had been suspected of corruption, and once they were ousted, successor administrations pledging reforms targeted previous officials, including Zlochevskiy, for investigation. Allegations against Zlochevskiy center on the funding schemes he used to form the company in 2002. But cases against him stall.

April 16, 2014 – U.K. investigates Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy

The U.K.’s Serious Fraud Office (SFO) blocks accounts of Burisma’s majority shareholder, Mykola Zlochevskiy. A British court conducts a hearing on Dec. 3-5, 2014, and unblocks the accounts in a Jan. 21, 2015 judgment, finding that none of the evidence “establishes reasonable grounds for a belief that his assets were unlawfully acquired as a result of misconduct in public office.” The SFO apparently continued its investigation until at least May 2015, when a spokeswoman told The Guardian, “We are disappointed we were not provided with the evidence by authorities in the Ukraine necessary to keep this restraint order in place.”

May 12, 2014 – Burisma Holdings issues a press release saying Hunter Biden has joined its board, and that he will be “in charge of the Holdings’ legal unit and will provide support for the company among international organizations.” The release cites his then-current positions as counsel to New York-based law firm Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP and co-founder and a managing partner of investment advisory firm Rosemont Seneca Partners, where he also served as board chairman.

May 25, 2014 – Chocolate and confectionary magnate/oligarch Petro Poroshenko wins the presidency in Ukraine in an election to succeed Yanukovych on a platform of turning Ukraine back to the West. Poroshenko previously had served as foreign minister and minister of trade and economic development.

June 7, 2014 – Petro Poroshenko takes office as president of Ukraine.

June 19, 2014 – The Ukrainian Parliament approves Poroshenko’s appointment of former law enforcement officer and member of Parliament Vitaly Yarema as prosecutor general.

Aug. 5, 2014 – Ukraine investigation of Burisma

Ukrainian Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarema opens an investigation of Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevskiy on suspicion of “unlawful enrichment.” Zlochevskiy’s American lawyer, John Buretta, a former U.S. deputy assistant attorney general, says in a 2017 Q&A on the Burisma website that a court in Kyiv ordered the case closed in September 2016 because no evidence of wrongdoing had been presented. While suspicions remain over how Zlochevskiy obtained his wealth and what happened to taxpayer money while he held public office, the British judge in the January 2015 U.K. judgment observed, “Allegations of corruption against political opponents appear to have been a feature of Ukrainian political life at this time.”

Oct. 14, 2014 – Ramping up Ukraine anti-corruption forces

Ukraine’s Parliament passes a law establishing the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), a priority of anti-corruption campaigners who’d helped lead the revolution and of the U.S. government (led by Biden) and other international backers of Ukraine. The bureau, which is to include a special prosecutor for certain corruption cases, was created in part because of the recognized ineffectiveness and corruption of the Prosecutor General’s Office and the country’s judiciary. The country’s anti-corruption plans also include a special High Anti-Corruption Court, which Poroshenko and Parliament slow-rolled until domestic and foreign advocates again exerted pressure over the past year. In fact, the U.S. and Europe required the Ukrainian government to fund NABU in exchange for financial aid. NABU’s early years are an uphill battle in the face of documented efforts by Parliament and the Prosecutor General’s Office to undermine its work.

NABU later becomes a target of Giuliani’s.

Feb. 10, 2015 – Viktor Shokin takes office as Ukraine’s prosecutor general, replacing Yarema.

Sept. 24, 2015 – U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt excoriates officials in the Prosecutor General’s Office for stymying anti-corruption investigations, including those involving Burisma

Pyatt’s speech was part of a regular drumbeat by U.S. and other Western leaders, including Vice President Biden, and a swath of Ukrainian civil society seeking to pressure President Poroshenko to force his officials, especially in the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) to crack down more, not less, on corruption. “Corruption kills,” Pyatt said in the address to the Odesa Financial Forum for business leaders. “It kills productivity and smothers inspiration. Ideas are lost in its shadow. Innovation and entrepreneurship lag under the weight of bribery, back room dealing, and bullying.”

While giving Shokin a last chance to shape up (Pyatt says, “We want to work with Prosecutor General Shokin so the PGO is leading the fight against corruption.”), the ambassador criticizes “officials at the PGO’s office” for not providing documents that were needed for the British investigation of Burisma owner Zlochevskiy and effectively allowing Zlochevskiy to transfer $23 million of what Pyatt says were Ukrainian taxpayer assets to Cyprus. In other words, Pyatt is critical of the prosecutor’s office for not aiding in investigations of Burisma’s owner, which was in line with Biden’s criticism that the office was blocking corruption investigations. Pyatt specifically called for the investigation and removal of officials who were involved in the failure to help the British authorities investigate Zlochevskiy:

“We have learned that there have been times that the PGO not only did not support investigations into corruption, but rather undermined prosecutors working on legitimate corruption cases.

For example, in the case of former Ecology Minister Mykola Zlochevsky [cq], the U.K. authorities had seized 23 million dollars in illicit assets that belonged to the Ukrainian people. Officials at the PGO’s office were asked by the U.K to send documents supporting the seizure.

Instead they sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him.

The misconduct by the PGO officials who wrote those letters should be investigated, and those responsible for subverting the case by authorizing those letters should – at a minimum – be summarily terminated.”

Oct. 8, 2015 – U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland continues the drumbeat on the need for stepped-up anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine, telling the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in testimony that “the Prosecutor General’s Office (PGO) has to be reinvented as an institution that serves the citizens of Ukraine, rather than ripping them off.” She continues, “That means it must investigate and successfully prosecute corruption and asset recovery cases, including locking up dirty personnel in the PGO itself.”

Fall 2015 – Biden, along with the EU, publicly calls for ouster of Prosecutor General Shokin for failure to work on anti-corruption efforts.

John E. Herbst, U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine under George W. Bush, later testified before Congress:

“By late fall of 2015, the EU and the United States joined the chorus of those seeking Mr. Shokin’s removal as the start of an overall reform of the Procurator General’s Office. U.S. Vice President Joe Biden spoke publicly about this before and during his December visit to Kyiv.”

Dec. 8, 2015 – Vice President Biden makes a speech to Ukraine’s Parliament urging the country to step up anti-corruption measures.

In a speech covered widely in news media, Biden implores Ukrainian lawmakers to move more quickly to fight the country’s “historic battle against corruption” and “make real the Revolution of Dignity.” (Many of the lawmakers themselves were former businessmen and suspected of corruption and therefore that much less interested in fighting graft.) He says, “The only thing worse than having no hope at all is having hopes rise and see them dashed repeatedly on the shoals of corruption…Not enough has been done yet.” Specifically citing Shokin’s Office of the General Prosecutor for lagging on corruption investigations, he continues:

“It’s not enough to set up a new anti-corruption bureau and establish a special prosecutor fighting corruption. The Office of the General Prosecutor desperately needs reform. The judiciary should be overhauled. The energy sector needs to be competitive, ruled by market principles — not sweetheart deals. It’s not enough to push through laws to increase transparency with regard to official sources of income. Senior elected officials have to remove all conflicts between their business interest and their government responsibilities. Every other democracy in the world — that system pertains.

Oligarchs and non-oligarchs must play by the same rules. They have to pay their taxes, settle their disputes in court — not by bullying judges. That’s basic. That’s how nations succeed in the 21st century.

Corruption siphons away resources from the people. It blunts the economic growth, and it affronts the human dignity. We know that. You know that. The Ukrainian people know that. When Russia seeks to use corruption as a tool of coercion, reform isn’t just good governance, it’s self-preservation. It’s in the national security interest of the nation ….

The United States is with you in this fight…We’ve stepped up with official assistance to help backstop the Ukrainian economy. We’ve rallied the international community to commit a total of $25 billion in bilateral and multilateral financing to support Ukraine. It includes $2 billion in U.S. loan guarantees and the possibility of more.

Yesterday I announced almost $190 million in new American assistance to help Ukraine fight corruption, strengthen the rule of law, implement critical reform, bolster civil society, advance energy security. That brings our total of direct aid to almost $760 million in direct assistance, in addition to loan guarantees since this crisis broke out. And that is not the end of what we’re prepared to do if you keep moving.

But for Ukraine to continue to make progress and to keep the support of the international community you have to do more, as well. The big part of moving forward with your IMF program — it requires difficult reforms.”

Jan. 21, 2016 – Vice President Biden meets with Ukrainian President Poroshenko and discusses “the need to continue to move forward on Ukraine’s anti-corruption agenda,” according to a readout on the website of the U.S. Embassy in Kyiv.

Feb. 11, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks with Poroshenko by phone. A U.S. Embassy statement said the two agreed “that it is essential for Ukraine to continue to take action to root out corruption and implement reforms.”

Biden later boasts about the pressure he exerted on Ukraine during that time to address corruption. In a Jan. 23, 2018, Q&A following a speech at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in Washington, Biden touts his tough stance with Ukraine in 2016. He says he told Ukrainian leaders that the U.S. would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired Prosecutor General Shokin. President Trump and Rudy Giuliani have cited that boast repeatedly as proof that Biden admitted pushing for Shokin’s firing, even though Biden was calling for the prosecutor to be fired because he wasn’t pursuing corruption cases vigorously enough. In the CFR appearance, Biden makes the comments in the context of expressing his concern that Ukraine still was not getting tough enough on corruption. “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Biden continued, “So they made some genuine substantial changes institutionally and with people. But … there’s now some backsliding.”

“The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practice,” the New York Times reported at the time.

Steven Pifer is a career foreign service officer who was ambassador to Ukraine under President Bill Clinton and deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs under President George W. Bush. He told PolitiFact that “virtually everyone” he knew in the U.S. government “felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired. As far as I can recall, they all concurred with the vice president telling Poroshenko that the U.S. government would not extend the $1 billion loan guarantee to Ukraine until Shokin was removed from office.”

Note: Investigation of Burisma laid dormant at the time

Vitaliy Kasko, a former deputy prosecutor general who had worked under Shokin and resigned in frustration at his stymying of corruption investigations, told Bloomberg News (in a May 2019 interview) that the office’s probe into Burisma Holdings had been long dormant by the time Joe Biden issued his ultimatum in 2016. “There was no pressure from anyone from the U.S. to close cases against” Burisma owner Zlochevskiy, Bloomberg quoted Kasko as saying. “It was shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015,” Kasko said.

“Shokin was not investigating. He didn’t want to investigate Burisma,” Daria Kaleniuk a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption advocate, told the Washington Post. “And Shokin was fired not because he wanted to do that investigation, but quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.”

See also entries above: At time of British investigation in 2014-2015, Shokin’s Office sent letters to Zlochevsky’s attorneys attesting that there was no case against him.

Feb. 16, 2016 – Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin resigns, then returns to office before finally being ousted

Ukrainian news media report on Feb. 16 that Viktor Shokin resigned as Prosecutor General after months of intense criticism for failing to adequately pursue any major corruption cases. But wait … despite President Poroshenko’s public call that day that Shokin resign and the apparent submission of a resignation letter on Feb. 19, media cited a prosecutor in Shokin’s office on March 16 saying the chief prosecutor was back after a “long leave.” Finally, on March 29, the Parliament voted overwhelmingly to approve Poroshenko’s recommendation to dismiss Shokin.

The European Union issued a statement hailing his departure. The respected English-language Kyiv Post writes, “By the end of his term, he was likely one of the most unpopular figures in Ukraine, having earned a bad reputation for inaction and obstructing top cases.” The paper also says it “wasn’t able to find any public comments that Shokin made about [Burisma] during his 14 months in office.”

Feb. 18 and 19, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks by phone with Ukrainian President Poroshenko. The Feb. 19 U.S. Embassy statement says Biden again urged the Ukrainian leader to “to accelerate Ukraine’s efforts to fight corruption, strengthen justice and the rule of law, and fulfill its IMF requirements.”

April 4, 2016 — George Kent, then charge d’Affaires in Kyiv, writes letter to Deputy Prosecutor General Yuriy Stolyarchuk re apparent pressure campaign on anti-corruption work and advocates inside and outside the office. Kent demands, essentially, that the PGO stop harassing entities and individuals with investigations based on the fact that they are involved in anti-corruption projects supported by the United States. [Note: The Hill’s John Solomon later twists this in a March 26, 2019 article to make it look like the Embassy was trying to suppress investigations.]

April 14, 2016 – Vice President Biden speaks with Ukrainian President Poroshenko by phone, emphasizing “the urgency of putting in place a new Prosecutor General who would bolster the agency’s anti-corruption efforts and strongly support the work of its reformers.” Biden does the same in a call the same day with newly elected Prime Minister Volodymyr Groysman.

May 12, 2016 – A new General Prosecutor

Yuriy Lutsenko, who had headed Poroshenko’s political bloc in Parliament, takes office as prosecutor general, after Parliament changed the law to allow someone without a law degree and legal experience to hold the position. According to the New York Times, “Lutsenko initially took a hard line against Burisma.”

May 13, 2016 — Biden speaks with Poroshenko to commend the appointment of Lutsenko and the creation of an inspector general for the PGO, and informed the Ukrainian President that the U.S. would finally sign the $1 billion loan guarantee program. The guarantee was signed on June 3, with Ambassador Pyatt representing the United States.

Aug. 14, 2016 – Evidence surfaces of payments to Paul Manafort

Paul Manafort by this time was Trump’s campaign chairman

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

If you read the rest of the story, you'll see the involvement of Manafort, Guiliani, Trump, Parnas, Fruman, Zelensky etc.

There will be some people going to jail.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/timeline-trump-giuliani-bidens-and-ukrainegate/

Biden wanted him gone to protect his crack head kid(otherwise there is a hell of a lot of coincidence involved there)...

so if a democrat actually gets a quid pro quo that's ok

if a republican talks about what democrats can construe as a possible quid pro quo.... that's impeachable

you people are nuts

your trying to come up w/alternate facts but are wrong. You have lost all credibility lately.

Do you have anything you can show that indicates Biden said to get rid of the pros. bc he wanted to protect his son?

Do you have anything you can show that indicates Biden said to get rid of the pros. bc he wanted to protect his son?



so you believe it was just a wild coincidence? I bet a lot of democrats are kicking themselves for not sending their kids to Ukraine to make a fortune

your trying to come up w/alternate facts but are wrong. You have lost all credibility lately.

Do you have anything you can show that indicates Biden said to get rid of the pros. bc he wanted to protect his son?

It’s hard to tell if you are being serious here Paul. Did you hear a tree fall?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so you believe it was just a wild coincidence? I bet a lot of democrats are kicking themselves for not sending their kids to Ukraine to make a fortune

Why so suspicious? Just because Kushner and Ivanka desperately needed that $600M cash infusion from the Saudis and then the crown prince bragged Kushner was "in his pocket"?

It’s hard to tell if you are being serious here Paul. Did you hear a tree fall?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

do you have any links?

so you believe it was just a wild coincidence? I bet a lot of democrats are kicking themselves for not sending their kids to Ukraine to make a fortune

I wish any pols. family/kids didn't benefit from the pols. being in office but there was nothing to indicate Biden was protecting his son and the US gov. (and many others) wanted the prosec. out.

I understand your confusion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The centerpiece of Trump’s impeachable abuse of power is turning out to be not one phone call with Ukraine’s leader but a sprawling conspiracy into which the president criminally corrupted a large chunk of the Executive Branch for his personal benefit

but there was nothing to indicate Biden was protecting his son and the US gov. (and many others) wanted the prosec. out.

THAT'S HILARIOUS

democrats(including biden) who were fleecing ukraine through their children and who were engaged in election skulduggery wanted him out...now they want trump out for wanting it exposed...democrats are basically a hopeless criminal enterprise at this point...swamp creatures united with the media to preserve the swamp and their cozy deals....it's un-American

281 lobbyists have worked in the Trump administration, where the swamp is anything but drained. That figure is 4 times more than the Obama administration had 6 years in. And former lobbyists serving Trump often regulate industries that once employed them.

And you know that the full US govern. wanted the pros. gone.

So quid pro quo is OK when the full US government (whatever that is) wants to do it, but if the chief executive of the government (who is responsible for foreign relations and represents the government in those relations) wants to do it he should be impeached?

The Ukrainian President didn't want to fire the prosecutor but was coerced or bribed into doing it by a quid pro quo by the VP who was representing the US government so it's OK?

But if a US President (who represents a government that professes to want to eliminate corruption in Ukraine and assure that such corruption doesn't interfere with future elections) supposedly gives a quid pro quo offer to help in exposing such corruption, he should be impeached?

THAT'S HILARIOUS

democrats(including biden) who were fleecing ukraine through their children and who were engaged in election skulduggery wanted him out...now they want trump out for wanting it exposed...democrats are basically a hopeless criminal enterprise at this point...swamp creatures united with the media to preserve the swamp and their cozy deals....it's un-American

so again you have no facts.

As I said, you have good down hill lately.

President Trump says he wants to drain the swamp, but appointed 281 lobbyists.

President Trump says he's concerned about families profiting from political connections, but his sons are running his business.

Then again...President Trump also said the Ukraine call was perfect.

As I said, you have good down hill lately.



thanks :hihi:

So quid pro quo is OK when the full US government (whatever that is) wants to do it, but if the chief executive of the government (who is responsible for foreign relations and represents the government in those relations) wants to do it he should be impeached?

The Ukrainian President didn't want to fire the prosecutor but was coerced or bribed into doing it by a quid pro quo by the VP who was representing the US government so it's OK?

But if a US President (who represents a government that professes to want to eliminate corruption in Ukraine and assure that such corruption doesn't interfere with future elections) supposedly gives a quid pro quo offer to help in exposing such corruption, he should be impeached?
Show me where Trump or his administration voiced concerns about corruption in Ukraine and the date

Diplomacy is always Quid pro quo
American diplomacy is done within the limits set by the Constitution
We have systems in place that ensure things are done within those limits
A shadow State Department is not part of our system, nor should it be.
Trump was told by numerous members of the Administration, that there were things he cannot do the way he wants.
Constructing a backchannel means of communication is not acceptable, to the Kremlin, MBS or Zelensky.
There is a horror show going on in this administration and it is starting to come to light.
Trump is scared.
What wacko thing will he do next to follow up on Syria?
Pull troops from Korea or Germany?

So quid pro quo is OK when the full US government (whatever that is) wants to do it, but if the chief executive of the government (who is responsible for foreign relations and represents the government in those relations) wants to do it he should be impeached?



yes he sb impeached when there are NO facts to back up the claim of corruption and that the Pres. is asking the foreign govern. to look into a political rival for his own political gains (along w/other reasons).

Well I guess we are past the point of if there was a QPQ.

yes he sb impeached when there are NO facts to back up the claim of corruption and that the Pres. is asking the foreign govern. to look into a political rival for his own political gains (along w/other reasons).

Well I guess we are past the point of if there was a QPQ.


What did trump gain in the supposed quid pro quo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yes he sb impeached when there are NO facts to back up the claim of corruption

There are ongoing investigations by the DOJ, the IG, By Durham and one other can't remember his name, on such corruption. Apparently they are aware of some "facts" that you're not.

The corrupt seed which led to these investigations and from which blossomed unproven charges of obstruction by Trump was the fake collusion narrative which was not founded on facts or evidence.

So, apparently, facts or evidence are not necessary to start investigations.

and that the Pres. is asking the foreign govern. to look into a political rival for his own political gains (along w/other reasons).

Well I guess we are past the point of if there was a QPQ.

It is perfectly legitimate to ask a foreign government with which you have an applicable treaty to look into these matters, and there is, as you and others insist re Biden, no proof that Trump is doing it for political gain.

Last week at his father’s rally in Minnesota, the president’s simple son led a round of “lock him up” chants aimed squarely at Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden. It was more than a little ironic given that, on the same morning, two close associates of his father’s personal lawyer were picked up at Dulles International Airport trying to get out of the country with one-way tickets to Vienna. Or the fact that his father’s last personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, is currently serving time. Or the fact that his father’s campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is also in the big house.

On the one hand, it’s kind of funny that everyone around Donald Trump seems to wind up in jail while he accuses the rest of the world of being corrupt. Like it’s all just some big, strange coincidence.

On the other hand, it’s kind of terrifying that Donald Trump always projects his character problems onto his opponents. And somehow he keeps getting away with it.

The arrest of Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman was just the latest case of Rudy Giuliani costing his boss even while working for him pro bono. He’s the most expensive free lawyer in America.

It’s also not helpful that Parnas and Fruman were supposed to join Giuliani in Vienna. After all, the president of the United States is desperate to convince people that he’s not a corrupt, would-be autocrat who deserves to be impeached because he’s flouting the Constitution and abusing his office by colluding with foreign governments. And yet, there’s his private attorney, running off to a secret meeting in another country with two foreign-born “business associates” who have been arrested on charges of funneling foreign money into U.S. elections. Oops.

Other charges against Parnas and Fruman—who again, it bears repeating, are “business associates” of the president’s personal lawyer—include falsifying records and making false statements.

Hours before they were arrested, they had dinner with the president’s free lawyer at the president’s hotel.

But yes, by all means, let’s lock up Joe Biden. That’s the real story here.

Keep believing

What did trump gain in the supposed quid pro quo?

What did trump gain in the supposed quid pro quo?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He was asking for dirt on his political rival. Didn't you know that?

He was asking for dirt on his political rival. Didn't you know that?

what did he gain?

it wasn't a tough question...well, maybe for you :hee:

what did he gain?

it wasn't a tough question...well, maybe for you :hee:

He didn't gain anything bc there was no corruption and the whistle blower came forward.

It is perfectly legitimate to ask a foreign government with which you have an applicable treaty to look into these matters, and there is, as you and others insist re Biden, no proof that Trump is doing it for political gain.

Not when it involves a political rival in a QPQ when there is no evidence that the person you are asking about did anything ie Hunter.

Do you have any links to any investigations about Hunter at the time Trump was pressuring the Ukr. to investigate Hunter?

The charge that the president asked the government of Ukraine to give him personal political favors is serious. Proving it also requires overcoming presidential stonewalling, building a carefully-constructed case on the model of criminal law, and relying on dozens of Republicans to reverse positions they have already taken publicly.

Cipollone’s or Trump's letter to Congress is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct—which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse. It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. The letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.

On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally—they are—but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.

The stakes are no less than that. The important fact about the Cipollone letter is not that it concocts legal grounds for resisting the House inquiry but rather that it reserves for presidents the right to judge whether impeachment proceedings are legitimate. Is there a circumstance in which a future president would acknowledge that they are?

That those in power will someday find themselves in opposition—and consequently should make decisions on the integrity of institutions rather than the behavior of individuals—is both one of the most important, and one of the most easily forsaken, tenets of constitutionalism.

Democrats forgot that principle with respect to President Obama’s assertions of unilateral executive authority over domestic issues such as health care and immigration. Yet some of the president’s most shameless apologists have retained a residue of institutional concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has defended the legislative filibuster on the grounds that Democrats are using it today, but Republicans may need it tomorrow.

A charge of obstruction of Congress would compel senators like McConnell to weigh the same considerations with respect to Congressional oversight. Is protecting this president today—an individual whose four-year term is a fraction of the Constitution’s centuries—more important than preserving Congressional power for all time? Could, for example, the Benghazi investigation have occurred at all if President Obama had been able to withhold the testimony of Senate-confirmed officials or documentary evidence on the claim that the process was partisan?

That presidents and legislators—especially senators—are chosen on different electoral clocks helps force these considerations. A senator elected alongside President Trump in 2020 will serve two years beyond his term and consequently should consider constitutional issues on a time horizon that exceeds one administration.

Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying.

What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.

Remember which side of this you fell on when the next administration comes along and claims that their powers are unlimited and pushes it further.

He didn't gain anything



thank you

Not when it involves a political rival in a QPQ when there is no evidence that the person you are asking about did anything ie Hunter.

Do you have any links to any investigations about Hunter at the time Trump was pressuring the Ukr. to investigate Hunter?

the fact that you think there is nothing to biden's kid being on that board is absolutely hilarious

The charge that the president asked the government of Ukraine to give him personal political favors is serious. Proving it also requires overcoming presidential stonewalling, building a carefully-constructed case on the model of criminal law, and relying on dozens of Republicans to reverse positions they have already taken publicly.

Cipollone’s or Trump's letter to Congress is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct—which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse. It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. The letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.

On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally—they are—but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.

The stakes are no less than that. The important fact about the Cipollone letter is not that it concocts legal grounds for resisting the House inquiry but rather that it reserves for presidents the right to judge whether impeachment proceedings are legitimate. Is there a circumstance in which a future president would acknowledge that they are?

That those in power will someday find themselves in opposition—and consequently should make decisions on the integrity of institutions rather than the behavior of individuals—is both one of the most important, and one of the most easily forsaken, tenets of constitutionalism.

Democrats forgot that principle with respect to President Obama’s assertions of unilateral executive authority over domestic issues such as health care and immigration. Yet some of the president’s most shameless apologists have retained a residue of institutional concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has defended the legislative filibuster on the grounds that Democrats are using it today, but Republicans may need it tomorrow.

A charge of obstruction of Congress would compel senators like McConnell to weigh the same considerations with respect to Congressional oversight. Is protecting this president today—an individual whose four-year term is a fraction of the Constitution’s centuries—more important than preserving Congressional power for all time? Could, for example, the Benghazi investigation have occurred at all if President Obama had been able to withhold the testimony of Senate-confirmed officials or documentary evidence on the claim that the process was partisan?

That presidents and legislators—especially senators—are chosen on different electoral clocks helps force these considerations. A senator elected alongside President Trump in 2020 will serve two years beyond his term and consequently should consider constitutional issues on a time horizon that exceeds one administration.

Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying.

What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.

Remember which side of this you fell on when the next administration comes along and claims that their powers are unlimited and pushes it further.

Lots of blah blah with no substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots of blah blah with no substance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You obviously have not read the letter and spout off as usual

the fact that you think there is nothing to biden's kid being on that board is absolutely hilarious

So show may the links I have requested.

The fact that you think there can't be a QPQ if Trump ended up not getting anything is absolutely hilarious.

So show may the links I have requested.

The fact that you think there can't be a QPQ if Trump ended up not getting anything is absolutely hilarious.

There was no quo so how could there be a quid pro quo and you completely mischaracterize what he was asking for
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So show may the links I have

Just google hunter Biden and read about his life and times. Good grief
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So quid pro quo is OK when the full US government (whatever that is) wants to do it, but if the chief executive of the government (who is responsible for foreign relations and represents the government in those relations) wants to do it he should be impeached?
But if a US President (who represents a government that professes to want to eliminate corruption in Ukraine and assure that such corruption doesn't interfere with future elections) supposedly gives a quid pro quo offer to help in exposing such corruption, he should be impeached?

The Trump team asks us to believe that the Trump administration’s concern was with corruption – specifically involving Joe Biden’ son, Hunter.
Is there any other example of this administration expressing dissatisfaction with corruption?

Where was concern about corruption in the Philippines?
In Egypt?
In Turkey?
In Russia?
In Saudi Arabia?

Trump has gone out of his way to excuse corruption – and worse – on the part of all of those nations.

Trump praised the Philippines’ Duterte for his war on drugs, though that war has included the extra-judicial killings of thousands. Trump Tower Philippines is the “definitive landmark” of Manila, the capital city.

He lauded Egypt’s al-Sisi (president till 2034), overlooking widely-reported human rights abuses.
He suggested that we lacked moral standing to criticize Turkish president Erdogan’s handling of a coup attempt. “When the world sees how bad the United States is and we start talking about civil liberties, I don’t think we are a very good messenger.” In December 2015, amidst a heated presidential primary, Trump said in a radio interview he had “a little conflict of interest” in Turkey. He was referring to Trump Towers Istanbul, a pair of Trump-licensed conjoined towers that received a warm welcome from Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan in 2012.

Challenged to justify his kind words for Vladimir Putin, whom the interviewer described as “a killer,” Trump was phlegmatic: “There are a lot of killers. You think our country’s so innocent?” The Russian government granted Trump six trademarks in 2016. Four of the Russian trademarks were approved for renewal on Nov. 8, 2016, the day after Trump’s election, including a trademark for Trump Tower.

When it became undeniable that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman had ordered Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi to be chopped up into small pieces, President Trump noted that the Saudis have promised to buy a lot of American military equipment.
“Saudi Arabia, I get along with all of them. They buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million,” Trump said at a 2016 campaign rally, “Am I supposed to dislike them?”

There was no quo so how could there be a quid pro quo and you completely mischaracterize what he was asking for
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not mischaracterizing anything. He shouldn't have asked the Ukr to look into the son of a political rival.

If you want to hang your hat on the fact the UKr couldn't look into Hunter's corruption bc there was no corruption that is on you.

I wonder how it will all turn out with all of these alleged misdeeds.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not mischaracterizing anything. He shouldn't have asked the Ukr to look into the son of a political rival.

If you want to hang your hat on the fact the UKr couldn't look into Hunter's corruption bc there was no corruption that is on you.

I frankly don't understand why we try to make our case on this board, they will NEVER admit that Trump has obstructed justice, or concede that he used tax payer approved military aid to extort a personal favor to get dirt on his perceived main political opponent in 2020, or that he continues to abuse his power and make moves to insure the family profits at our tax payer expense He is the most corrupt president of our lifetime, BUT if you hate and absolutely despise the left, this is what you will get on every single solitary thread you start, these guys are just spouting the party line. The means justify the ends in order to hold on to the senate and presidency, it's as predictable as SD about to chime in; The Best President of our lifetime.

I frankly don't understand why we try to make our case on this board,

I was thinking the same thing......:uhuh:

I think it's because you crave attention.....

You guys are hypocrites, you claim the evil dems just hate Trump so badly they will do anything to get him out of office, all the while ignoring the corruption in plain sight. Your responses are just a reflection of your hatred of the evil democrats, can't be much clearer. I'm an independent and have probably voted republican more than democratic, but I see this CLOWN for what he is and if it goes unchecked, it sets a very low bar for what is acceptable for our president.

I have to wonder if he and guys like PeteF are seriously out to prove people wrong. And when it fails, they feign shock after all of the proof they have presented. Interesting concept I guess.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You guys are hypocrites, you claim the evil dems and the evil media just hate Trump so badly they will do anything to get him out of office, all the while ignoring the corruption in plain sight. Your responses are just a reflection of your hatred of the evil democrats and the evil media, can't be much clearer. I'm an independent and have probably voted republican more than democratic, but I see this CLOWN for what he is and if it goes unchecked, it sets a very low bar for what is acceptable for our president.

fixed it

Trump compares the pull out to letting two kids on a play lot fight for a minute until you pull them apart. The man is clearly unfiltered and bonkers, what a “presidential” statement. Hundreds of thousands fleeing, hundreds dead, reported war crimes, our troops near fire, our allies in jeopardy of being destroyed, we are bombing our own installations to avoid others taking them over, but Turkey got what it wanted and we got zip. Trump is a scary guy to have control of our military, go sleep well tonight that your 401k is doing well, while Trump destroys our position as a world leader; but his financial interests in Turkey are secure.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Mr Mulvaney later backtracked on his earlier remarks, saying the media had "decided to misconstrue my comments".

Again we did not hear what was said . even the Tape recording "decided to misconstrue my comments". typical

Mr Mulvaney later backtracked on his earlier remarks, saying the media had "decided to misconstrue my comments".

Again we did not hear what was said . even the Tape recording "decided to misconstrue my comments". typical

In the words of Pete F. "Diplomacy is always Quid pro quo". Any leverage that Mulvaney referred to was in the vein of Pete's quote. Mulvaney clarified his previous general comment (or "backtracked" as you characterize it) by stating specifically what he meant, leverage in regard to corruption and lack of aid by other countries.

Ukraine President said he didn't know about the money being withheld until after the phone call, so it couldn't have been a quid pro quo.

Not when it involves a political rival in a QPQ when there is no evidence that the person you are asking about did anything ie Hunter.

The Mueller investigation into Trump supposedly conspiratorially colluding with Russia has established that evidence is not necessary to start an investigation.

Do you have any links to any investigations about Hunter at the time Trump was pressuring the Ukr. to investigate Hunter?

Don't need links in order to be able to think. It is very fishy and stinks of corruption that Hunter got an exceedingly high paying job for which he had no specifically applicable qualifications, and is evident that he got the gig because he is the son of the VP, and that the VP got the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's employer fired.

Distraction right out of Trumps play book, good boy good boy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Distraction right out of Trumps play book, good boy good boy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're such a genius. It's a wonder that more people don't realize that.

In the words of Pete F. "Diplomacy is always Quid pro quo". Any leverage that Mulvaney referred to was in the vein of Pete's quote. Mulvaney clarified his previous general comment (or "backtracked" as you characterize it) by stating specifically what he meant, leverage in regard to corruption and lack of aid by other countries.

Ukraine President said he didn't know about the money being withheld until after the phone call, so it couldn't have been a quid pro quo.

No national leader doesn’t know what is in the USA news regarding politics and his country
It was in the NYT before trump called him
Ukraine doesn’t want to be in the middle of this
Trump last week forced Zelensky’s hand and because Zelensky did not believe the USA had his back he had to fold on Donbas
Win for Putin
Putin’s Puppet is paying for the help in the last election
Zelensky got screwed by Trump
The Kurds are getting cleansed because of Trump
He is the weakest President in the history of the USA
Your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No national leader doesn’t know what is in the USA news regarding politics and his country
It was in the NYT before trump called him
Ukraine doesn’t want to be in the middle of this
Trump last week forced Zelensky’s hand and because Zelensky did not believe the USA had his back he had to fold on Donbas
Win for Putin
Putin’s Puppet is paying for the help in the last election
Zelensky got screwed by Trump
The Kurds are getting cleansed because of Trump
He is the weakest President in the history of the USA
Your hero
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently, Zelensky didn't read the NYT article, or he is a liar. Do you have proof that he is a liar?

To Win Giuliani’s Help, Oligarch’s Allies Pursued Biden Dirt
Associates of a Ukrainian oligarch fighting extradition to the U.S. were working to dig up dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden last summer in an effort to get Rudy Giuliani’s help in the oligarch’s legal case, according to three people familiar with the exchanges.

Dmitry Firtash, charged with conspiracy by the U.S. and living in Vienna, shuffled lawyers in July to add Joe diGenova and Victoria Toensing, vocal supporters of President Donald Trump who had worked with Giuliani. Around that time, some of Firtash’s associates began to use his broad network of Ukraine contacts to get damaging information on Biden, the people said.
It’s all coming out
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

DiGenova and Toensing have billed Firtash about $1 million for their work, one of the people said. That includes costs for Lev Parnas, a Giuliani associate, as a translator and important contact, the person said. Parnas was arrested last week along with several associates and accused of conspiring to violate campaign-finance laws.

People working on Firtash’s behalf collected a witness statement from Viktor Shokin, a former Ukrainian prosecutor-general. The statement, dated early September, helped Giuliani renew an assertion that he’d been advancing for months -- that Biden had tried in 2016 to sway Ukrainian politics to help his son. U.S. and Ukrainian officials have disputed Shokin’s account.

Shokin, though, had been promised his statement wouldn’t be made public, according to the people. Giuliani went on to cite it repeatedly, waving it around on cable news as evidence of Biden’s alleged corruption. The Hill and other media outlets provided links to it, with Giuliani later suggesting he had a role in making it public. “This is the affidavit I put out,” he said during a Fox News interview this month.


As a result of the publicity Giuliani generated with Shokin’s statement, two of the people said they believe the odds of the Justice Department dropping the case against Firtash have plummeted, because it would look like a quid pro quo. Others connected to the case agreed.

U.S. lawmakers conducting a presidential impeachment inquiry are bearing down on whether favors were traded for influence. They are examining Giuliani’s efforts to turn up evidence in Ukraine and allegations that the Trump administration withheld crucial aid until the country’s president agreed to investigate the Bidens.
https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2019-10-18/to-win-giuliani-s-help-oligarch-s-allies-pursued-biden-dirt-k1wk3x0o?__twitter_impression=true

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is more fake news to feed the hungry.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A supposedly corrupt prosecutor, at the behest of a corrupt Biden, was replaced by another corrupt prosecutor who then closed all the investigations into corruption in the Ukraine despite our government's concern about Ukrainian corruption. Sounds like a lot of corruption on all sides of the matter. Sounds like it might be a good thing to investigate what all the corruption was about.

https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/2019/10/18/new-state-department-official-reveals-approached-joe-biden-hunter-bidens-dealings-2015/

Some excerpts: "I’m going to guess this isn’t what Adam Schiff wanted to come out of his latest “hearing.”
A State Department official named George Kent, who served during the Obama administration as well . . . managed to drop a piece of new information and it had to do with Hunter Biden.

"Namely, that Kent had approached Biden in 2015 about the issues with his son’s dealing and was rebuffed . . . Kent, who testified behind closed doors before committees spearheading the formal House impeachment inquiry, told congressional investigators that he had qualms about Hunter Biden’s role on the board of the Ukrainian energy company Burisma Holdings. Remember, Biden has repeatedly claimed that he didn’t know of his son’s dealings. We know he’s lying in regards to ever talking to Hunter about them, but now we know they were also brought to his attention through official channels as well . . . There’s another bit of information in this piece that’s interesting as well . . .

"Kent testified that while Shokin faced accusations of corruption, his replacement, Lutsenko, did too and that both ex-prosecutors were godfathers to former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko’s children. However, according to sources, Kent said that while the United States pushed hard for Shokin to be fired, no one ever pushed for Lutsenko to be fired. There’s another bit of information in this piece that’s interesting as well. Lutsenko ended up closing the cases into Burisma and other corruption within Ukraine. Coincidentally, I’m sure, the Obama administration had no problem keeping him on the job despite his checkered history and the fact that he just happened to be helping out Joe Biden and his son in the process."

Was that leaked?

Plenty of spin going on about that from both sides, it will be hard to discern the truth for a while.

Trump is trying very hard to make this investigation about someone else.

It's not.

It's about the lies and obstruction.

Don't need links in order to be able to think. It is very fishy and stinks of corruption that Hunter got an exceedingly high paying job for which he had no specifically applicable qualifications, and is evident that he got the gig because he is the son of the VP, and that the VP got the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's employer fired.
How can something "stink of corruption" when there's still zero evidence of a corrupt act? Getting a good job because of connections isn't exactly corrupt, it's pretty normal.

Burisma wasn't under investigation at the time Biden, a bipartisan Congress and the IMF wanted the prosecutor fired either.

Getting a good job because of connections isn't exactly corrupt, it's pretty normal.



You can’t be this dumb
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You can’t be this dumb
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm really not. Perhaps you can help me understand why you think this is wrong.

Let’s get a full list of corrupt governments that the US has been leery of making deals with, it’s dozens and likely dozens more, it doesn’t change the fact that ironically this one might be willing to provide dirt (real or not) on the Bidens AND military aid already allocated was being held up in order for Trump to PERSONALLY gain an edge in an up coming election. Two wrongs don’t make it right, spin baby spin.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't need links in order to be able to think. It is very fishy and stinks of corruption that Hunter got an exceedingly high paying job for which he had no specifically applicable qualifications, and is evident that he got the gig because he is the son of the VP, and that the VP got the prosecutor who was investigating Hunter's employer fired.

Yes, I didn't think you would provide any links. So where exactly is the corruption? it might not be right but it's certainly not corrupt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, I didn't think you would provide any links. So where exactly is the corruption? it might not be right but it's certainly not corrupt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought investigations were needed to find alleged corruption or crime or reasons for impeachment. You know, like what they've been doing to Trump from day one and before.

it might not be right but it's certainly not corrupt.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2:

:rotf2:

This is what we deal with
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought investigations were needed to find alleged corruption or crime or reasons for impeachment. You know, like what they've been doing to Trump from day one and before.
If you smell #^&#^&#^&#^& in your house, don’t you look to see where the stink is coming from?
Trump has stunk for years
He can start by releasing his taxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you smell #^&#^&#^&#^& in your house, don’t you look to see where the stink is coming from?
Trump has stunk for years
He can start by releasing his taxes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The Biden stink needs to be investigated.

The Biden stink needs to be investigated.
Always distract
That’s Putin’s playbook
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny those trashing biden for getting 50 k a month seem to only like success when its achieved by people with R next to their names.. we all know the people whom i speak . BUT they easily dismiss all of the a trump children and their business dealing or that thier name alone has open doors for them. But but Bidens son oh how corrupt..

Typical Republican hypocrites.....

Only in their world everything is the same
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

so Wayne, if Baron Trump gets a job with a big Ukrainian company next week it won't be a problem for you? Baron is probably twice as qualified as Hunter Biden was and doesn't have all of the baggage :p

Always distract
That’s Putin’s playbook
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always verbiage. Putin is like that too.

so Wayne, if Baron Trump gets a job with a big Ukrainian company next week it won't be a problem for you? Baron is probably twice as qualified as Hunter Biden was and doesn't have all of the baggage :p


Only in your world everything is the same..

PS BARRON RECENTLY RECEIVED A HORSE NAMED VICTORIA FROM THE MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT.

Only in your world everything is the same..

PS BARRON RECENTLY RECEIVED A HORSE NAMED VICTORIA FROM THE MONGOLIAN GOVERNMENT.

good grief....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mongolian President Battulga Khaltmaa will visit the White House on Wednesday, seeking help from President Donald Trump on trade and military deals - and possibly a name for the horse his government has symbolically gifted to Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron.


The vast northern nation locked between Russia and China is known for its ancient breed of tough, tiny horses ridden by Genghis Khan and other warlords - and often gives horses to visiting dignitaries.

The horse is unlikely to make the long trip to the United States, a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, though Mongolian officials are eager that it be given a name. Other U.S. dignitaries to receive a symbolic horse in the past include former Vice President Joe Biden, and former defense secretaries Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld.

good grief....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Mongolian President Battulga Khaltmaa will visit the White House on Wednesday, seeking help from President Donald Trump on trade and military deals - and possibly a name for the horse his government has symbolically gifted to Trump’s 13-year-old son, Barron.


The vast northern nation locked between Russia and China is known for its ancient breed of tough, tiny horses ridden by Genghis Khan and other warlords - and often gives horses to visiting dignitaries.

The horse is unlikely to make the long trip to the United States, a senior U.S. administration official told reporters, though Mongolian officials are eager that it be given a name. Other U.S. dignitaries to receive a symbolic horse in the past include former Vice President Joe Biden, and former defense secretaries Chuck Hagel and Donald Rumsfeld.

You brought him up not me..

A symbolic horse to the 13 year old son of a POTUS who loves being stroked.. no way they are trying to seek Trumps Favor ...

Yes they gave it him for exactly the same reason as thoses other pepole you listed... LOL

Ps seems we symbolicly pulled out of Syria to bring Troops home.. To bad they went to Iraq instead ..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

.

A symbolic horse to the 13 year old son of a POTUS

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

clearly a high crime and misdemeanor

An interesting look at the legal backdrop surrounding the Ukraine Congressional Inquiry and possible Impeachment

Self-Dealing in Ukraine: The Core of the Impeachment Inquiry

Philip Zelikow is the White Burkett Miller Professor of History at the University of Virginia. He has practiced law and served in various government positions, including as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission.

As the Ukraine story develops, the public focus has remained largely on wrongdoing by the president outside the realm of criminal law, focusing instead on President Trump’s apparent use of his office for personal gain. On one level, this makes sense: Impeachment is only about removal of the president from office, not about criminal prosecution and imprisonment. So the standards and processes for impeachment are different.

But it would be a mistake to ignore the criminal law entirely. Evidence of criminal misconduct, specifically, the federal bribery statute, should influence political judgments about impeachment. After all, “Bribery” is one of the grounds for impeachment specifically enumerated in the Constitution.

Before getting involved in foreign policy work, most of my professional work was in criminal justice. The emerging case should be understood from both of these perspectives. Here, I offer a view of how a public corruption prosecutor might regard the way the case is taking shape. In addition to the role that possible criminal wrongdoing by the president could play in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, evidence about criminal misconduct might also apply, more directly, to the possible investigations of others beyond the president—including Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney.

The core of the impeachment inquiry is about whether Trump engaged in self-dealing, where he used his power in a publicly held enterprise (that is, the government of the United States) for personal gain. Most executives in the private sector know what self-dealing is, and recent headlines about Renault-Nissan or WeWork have reminded them. They also know how most corporate boards would handle a case of self-dealing that involved important programs and sums of money, and in which the CEO had fired executives who interfered with the self-dealing.

continued in the link below

https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-dealing-ukraine-core-impeachment-inquiry

Thank you for sharing PeteF. This may seem enlightening to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for sharing PeteF. This may seem enlightening to you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump watched his advisory panel this am

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump· 2h
Neither he (Taylor) or any other witness has provided testimony that the Ukrainians were aware that military aid was being withheld. You can’t have a quid pro quo with no quo.” Congressman John Ratcliffe @foxandfriends Where is the Whistleblower? The Do Nothing Dems case is DEAD!

Here's the foolish thing about this line of defense (obfuscation would be more accurate)...the money was held up. If they didn't want something from Ukraine, and Ukraine didn't know the money was being held up, what was the point in holding up the money (which was legally dubious at best).

Game over
The problem was not a bureaucratic glitch, the Ukrainians were told then. To address it, they were advised, they should reach out to Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, according to the interviews and records.
The timing of the communications about the issue, which have not previously been reported, shows that Ukraine was aware the White House was holding up the funds weeks earlier than United States and Ukrainian officials had acknowledged. And it means that the Ukrainian government was aware of the freeze during most of the period in August when Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudolph W. Giuliani, and two American diplomats were pressing President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to make a public commitment to the investigations being sought by Mr. Trump.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for sharing your (nothing) 🍔 of the day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Thank you for sharing your (nothing) 🍔 of the day.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

🍑🍑🍑🍑🍑🍑🍑🍑

There’s no quo to go with the quid pro
There is but they didn’t know it
They knew it but?????
🦗🦗🦗
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Pete, I can tell you are having a rough go of it. Sending good vibes your way.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you think maybe he's worried?

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
The Never Trumper Republicans, though on respirators with not many left, are in certain ways worse and more dangerous for our Country than the Do Nothing Democrats. Watch out for them, they are human scum!
1:48 PM · Oct 23, 2019·Twitter for iPhone
Never Trumper Republican John Bellinger, represents Never Trumper Diplomat Bill Taylor (who I don’t know), in testimony before Congress! Do Nothing Democrats allow Republicans Zero Representation, Zero due process, and Zero Transparency....
....Does anybody think this is fair? Even though there was no quid pro quo, I’m sure they would like to try. Worse than the Dems!
It would be really great if the people within the Trump Administration, all well-meaning and good (I hope!), could stop hiring Never Trumpers, who are worse than the Do Nothing Democrats. Nothing good will ever come from them!

Worried about our country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Worried about our country
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If he were he’d have talked to security experts, he would have talked to military experts, he would have talked to Jeffreys, before abandoning our allies and giving up a low risk extremely high gain military position in Syria. If anyone is buying into his spinning this today as a great win, is either an idiot or just blind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He cares about you.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really are blind, way to much time with your head in the sand, Trump cares about himself, his time in front of the camera and family fortune. But you’d be stepping way out of character, if you ever actually put forth an argument that made any sense and was supported with evidence, other than your one line boring come backs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really are blind, way to much time with your head in the sand, Trump cares about himself, his time in front of the camera and family fortune. But you’d be stepping way out of character, if you ever actually put forth an argument that made any sense and was supported with evidence, other than your one line boring come backs.


You keep saying that Trump just cares about himself, and enriching himself by being President. Are you making that true by saying so, or do you have evidence?

According to Forbes, Trump’s Net Worth Has Declined Since Becoming President. Trump has lost $600 million in net worth over the past year, According to Forbes, which tracks the wealth of America’s richest. Forbes estimates Trump’s net worth is now $3.1 billion compared to $3.7 billion at the same point in time last year.

You keep saying that Trump just cares about himself, and enriching himself by being President. Are you making that true by saying so, or do you have evidence?

According to Forbes, Trump’s Net Worth Has Declined Since Becoming President. Trump has lost $600 million in net worth over the past year, According to Forbes, which tracks the wealth of America’s richest. Forbes estimates Trump’s net worth is now $3.1 billion compared to $3.7 billion at the same point in time last year.

Oh Forbes hmmm
https://fortune.com/2018/04/20/trump-lied-wealth-forbes-400-list/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/10/02/donald-trump-has-sold-more-than-100-million-of-real-estate-since-taking-office/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2019/05/08/why-we-took-trump-off-the-forbes-400-during-his-decade-of-tax-losses/#2e9d431e33d9
So tell me, just where did the Donald get the funding to stay in the real estate business after his AC debacle?
https://themoscowproject.org/collusion-chapter/chapter-1/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep saying that Trump just cares about himself, and enriching himself by being President. Are you making that true by saying so, or do you have evidence?

According to Forbes, Trump’s Net Worth Has Declined Since Becoming President. Trump has lost $600 million in net worth over the past year, According to Forbes, which tracks the wealth of America’s richest. Forbes estimates Trump’s net worth is now $3.1 billion compared to $3.7 billion at the same point in time last year.

Well I guess if that’s true and just because as usual you have found one link to make it so, I guess it’s just business as usual for the Trump business. He has and can lose more money than this entire community could make it three lifetimes.

So the counter argument is how much worse could it be if his family wasn’t making millions off all the foreign dignitaries and staff staying at his hotels and resorts, or if military flights hadn’t been diverted to bolster a struggling golf resort, or if Pence and others in foreign trips weren’t using our tax payer dollars to keep the Trump family flag flying.

Hey thanks for help making the point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trump's best - really, his only - defense is that his desire to investigate Biden was not to take out a rival, but to combat corruption. Big problems with that defense:

1. He pushed Ukraine, not his own DOJ to investigate.

2. He worked through his private lawyer, Giuliani, rather than through his own White House counsel or the DOJ.

3. Giuliani himself was working with two people who are now under indictment, and who were themselves foreign individuals. Not great witnesses for the defense, at best.

4. He cut Bolton, his own NSA, out of the loop. Not consistent with pursuing a legitimate national interest.

5. He never attempted to enlist other countries or international law enforcement to help pursue the investigation, as a non-corrupt enforcer would do. The EU had long-standing desires to curtail Ukrainian corruption.

6. The witnesses Giuliani and Trump were putting forward for Ukraine to talk to were themselves the targets of corruption investigations.

7. Trump had just in May certified Ukraine as sufficiently non-corrupt to provide aid. That undermines his claim that he needed to withhold aid to get them to investigate corruption by Biden.

7a. Put differently, Trump didn't condition aid on Ukraine generally pursuing corruption, but just corruption by one person, who happens to be Biden. Yet numerous others (including Americans) are more likely to be corruption targets of an honest corruption initiative.

8. Trump did not withdraw the prior certification of Ukraine, nor did he alert anyone else, that Ukraine was backsliding generally on its commitment to fighting corruption.

It is hard to determine what your hope is for an outcome here PeteF., but I am guessing that you are setting yourself as well as your disciples up for a big disappointment. I am wishing you inner strength.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It is hard to determine what your hope is for an outcome here PeteF., but I am guessing that you are setting yourself as well as your disciples up for a big disappointment. I am wishing you inner strength.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
🍑🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh I think it’s a given the House will impeach and then as much as Moscow Mitch would like to avoid a trial in the senate; he has already committed to do so. If Trump and his base feel being one of the few American presidents to be impeached by the House, even if acquitted in the senate, is a boon for republicans in the 20/20 election I think they should think again. Trump has become unhinged enough, especially with the Syria situation, that he might be in for a shock in the senate vote. Boy wouldn’t that be fun to watch, kicking and screaming as he is shown the door and escorted to the NY district attorneys van waiting out front. Might be a pipe dream of mine, but I won’t lose sleep either way and if the Democrats still control the House and by some miracle Trump makes it to 20/20 and gets elected, he is going to be watched like a hawk.

If we can survive four years, America can probably make threw another four. Those that will suffer the most are our allies around the world who have counted on the US for stable and thoughtful leadership, they will have to struggle another four years of impulsive foreign policy from someone everyone knows can’t be trusted.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

America can probably make threw another four.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I bet most of trump's base is smart enough to know the difference:rtfm:

GS, if you don’t think it’s at least possible for trump to be helped by getting impeached by this house, you have no idea what happened in 2016

impeachment could hurt him significantly. but lots of things should have hurt him ( doomed him, even) in 2016, and they didn’t.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I guess if that’s true and just because as usual you have found one link to make it so, I guess it’s just business as usual for the Trump business. He has and can lose more money than this entire community could make it three lifetimes.

So the counter argument is how much worse could it be if his family wasn’t making millions off all the foreign dignitaries and staff staying at his hotels and resorts, or if military flights hadn’t been diverted to bolster a struggling golf resort, or if Pence and others in foreign trips weren’t using our tax payer dollars to keep the Trump family flag flying.

Hey thanks for help making the point.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey, I posted some evidence that Trump is not being enriched because he is President. You're refutation is just to state your beliefs, as if they were true. It's your style.

You're refutation is just to state your beliefs, as if they were true.

he spends a remarkable amount of time trying to convince himself of stuff

Hey he is building border wall in Colorado, I think he should run on his wealth of knowledge of geography alone😜😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hey he is building border wall in Colorado, I think he should run on his wealth of knowledge of geography alone😜😜
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

well, the smartest president ever said he'd visited all 57 states and and had one more to go and he didn't know that his own home state borders Kentucky and not Hillary's home state of Arkansas.....and we know trump is dumb...at least we're told... so at least it's excusable for him