Rumors or where there's smoke there's something

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

biden didn’t extort Ukraine?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, extortion is a crime Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

No, extortion is a crime Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I did hear Biden brag that he threatened to withhold monetary aid to Ukraine, unless they did what he wanted. I hear a lot of people saying Trump should be impeached for essentially doing the same thing. Of course, that's after years of them saying he should be impeached just because they didn't like him, so the threshold is somewhat nebulous and flexible, for what constitutes an impeachable offense. Apparently it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I did hear Biden brag that he threatened to withhold monetary aid to Ukraine, unless they did what he (and the US state department, Congress, the IMF, the EU etc.) wanted. I hear a lot of people saying Trump should be impeached for essentially doing the same thing. Of course, that's after years of them saying he should be impeached just because they didn't like him, so the threshold is somewhat nebulous and flexible, for what constitutes an impeachable offense. Apparently it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Not the same thing at all.
Asking a foreign country to investigate an American, when there is no domestic criminal investigation into him and no predicate is a non-starter.
We have domestic law enforcement avenues for that.
If Floridaman really wanted to root out corruption there are US government processes to do that.

State Department bureau—the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)—focused on law enforcement efforts overseas, including investigating corruption. For 2020 the Trump administration proposed cutting the budget for this by 40%, what does that say about the concern with corruption?

Alert the Ukraine ambassador, and let him deal with it
Ambassadors can’t interfere in a corruption investigation or direct that one be opened, but they can pass information along to experts at the embassy—including INL experts and Department of Justice personnel.

Request cooperation (officially)
If there were an actual U.S. government investigation into alleged criminal activity by Americans in Ukraine, or foreigners suspected of violating U.S. laws, a request for cooperation could have been made through a formal process that’s run by DOJ’s Office of International Affairs. Once MLAT requests are vetted by the DOJ, they are transmitted to a foreign country’s “central authority”—in this case, Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. If granted in the foreign country, this arrangement could allow the DOJ to obtain documents, locate people, take testimony, request searches and seizures, freeze assets and more. If the United States were actually pursuing criminal investigations into corruption in Ukraine, U.S. officials would have made a request under our MLAT for cooperation.

So was Trump's goal to investigate corruption and as Lindsey Graham suggests he is either too incompetent or too stupid to do it correctly or was his goal to get dirt on Biden and as Putin and Orban suggested to him, prove that Ukraine, not Russia was responsible for interference in the 2016 election.
Either way he is unfit for office.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Not the same thing at all.
Asking a foreign country to investigate an American, when there is no domestic criminal investigation into him and no predicate is a non-starter.
We have domestic law enforcement avenues for that.
If Floridaman really wanted to root out corruption there are US government processes to do that.

State Department bureau—the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement (INL)—focused on law enforcement efforts overseas, including investigating corruption. For 2020 the Trump administration proposed cutting the budget for this by 40%, what does that say about the concern with corruption?

Alert the Ukraine ambassador, and let him deal with it
Ambassadors can’t interfere in a corruption investigation or direct that one be opened, but they can pass information along to experts at the embassy—including INL experts and Department of Justice personnel.

Request cooperation (officially)
If there were an actual U.S. government investigation into alleged criminal activity by Americans in Ukraine, or foreigners suspected of violating U.S. laws, a request for cooperation could have been made through a formal process that’s run by DOJ’s Office of International Affairs. Once MLAT requests are vetted by the DOJ, they are transmitted to a foreign country’s “central authority”—in this case, Ukraine's Ministry of Justice. If granted in the foreign country, this arrangement could allow the DOJ to obtain documents, locate people, take testimony, request searches and seizures, freeze assets and more. If the United States were actually pursuing criminal investigations into corruption in Ukraine, U.S. officials would have made a request under our MLAT for cooperation.

So was Trump's goal to investigate corruption and as Lindsey Graham suggests he is either too incompetent or too stupid to do it correctly or was his goal to get dirt on Biden and as Putin and Orban suggested to him, prove that Ukraine, not Russia was responsible for interference in the 2016 election.
Either way he is unfit for office.

so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

you’ll say anything to make the case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you’ll say anything to make the case.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's hot in pete's bunker

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

you’ll say anything to make the case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Let’s be clear the State Department and all these government career employees are record keepers and: if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify. They don’t. Their truthful testimony would (further) sink Trump.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Let’s be clear the State Department and all these government career employees are record keepers and: if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify. They don’t. Their truthful testimony would (further) sink Trump.

Once again, you didn't respond to what I asked, not even close.

You said that what Biden did with quid pro quo in K=Ukraine wasn't extortion, because the State Department was on board. SO using your logic (your logic, not mine), if the State Department was OK with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, that would not be extortion? just seeing if that standard only applies to Biden.

I have news for you. Trump is going to be the nominee in 2020. The house will probably impeach, there's no way the senate convicts, not based on what we know now. Zero chance. There may even be some democrats who don't vote for conviction like the coal guy Munchin from WV.

I'm not saying Trump will win. I'm saying he's going to be the nominee.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Once again, you didn't respond to what I asked, not even close.

You said that what Biden did with quid pro quo in K=Ukraine wasn't extortion, because the State Department was on board. SO using your logic (your logic, not mine), if the State Department was OK with Trump asking Ukraine to investigate Biden, that would not be extortion? just seeing if that standard only applies to Biden.

I have news for you. Trump is going to be the nominee in 2020. The house will probably impeach, there's no way the senate convicts, not based on what we know now. Zero chance. There may even be some democrats who don't vote for conviction like the coal guy Munchin from WV.

I'm not saying Trump will win. I'm saying he's going to be the nominee.

I think you are incapable of critical thought

What you asked was
so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

My answer was
Let’s be clear the State Department and all these government career employees are record keepers and: if the State Department, Giuliani, Mulvaney, Perry, had information that could clear Trump - that was helpful to Trump - they would be banging on the Congressional hearing room door demanding to testify. They don’t. Their truthful testimony would (further) sink Trump.

Maybe you think they would not come forth with evidence to clear Trump or that I need to actually take a poll.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

so if state department also wanted ukraine to investigate biden, then what trump did was he OK to you? have you taken a poll of the state department to get their opinion in this?

you’ll say anything to make the case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you cant follow the bouncing ball to well can you

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

you cant follow the bouncing ball to well can you

Hey Einstein, read Pete's post, or have someone read it to you. Pete said that Bidens quid pro quo when he was VP wasn't extortion, because the state department was on board. So I asked if that standard also applied to Trump.

I'm sorry if that's going too fast for you, I don't know how to simplify it.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well I'm not a lawyer, but I did hear Biden brag that he threatened to withhold monetary aid to Ukraine, unless they did what he wanted. I hear a lot of people saying Trump should be impeached for essentially doing the same thing. Of course, that's after years of them saying he should be impeached just because they didn't like him, so the threshold is somewhat nebulous and flexible, for what constitutes an impeachable offense. Apparently it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.

Not even remotely the same and I'm a bit perplexed how you can't see the difference. What Biden did was akin to a bank telling you they're not going to approve your mortgage until you get your credit score up.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Not even remotely the same and I'm a bit perplexed how you can't see the difference. What Biden did was akin to a bank telling you they're not going to approve your mortgage until you get your credit score up.

Oh. Because firing a crooked prosecutor makes it more likely they could pay us back? We all know Biden and Obama were very frugal with national spending, and wanted to make sure any loans will be repaid back. Biden was just acting as a mortgage underwriter. Of course!

And Trump, as the executive branch, has no authority to inquire as to Americans engaged in corruption in other countries. Gotcha.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Not even remotely the same and I'm a bit perplexed how you can't see the difference. What Biden did was akin to a bank telling you they're not going to approve your mortgage until you get your credit score up.

This statement is akin to being retarded. But perhaps you are simply misunderstood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

This statement is akin to being retarded. But perhaps you are simply misunderstood.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Care to level up by making a point?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device