Dems are Cray Cray and Running a NAZI Stalinist Style Impeachment with no legal backing

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you have any links for that?

That's not what I've read.

a reply to: grey580

MSM has flat out lied about everything.

“Mr. Shokin attempted to continue the investigations but on or around June or July of 2015, the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves, which according to Mr. Shokin, that implied do nothing,” the notes from the interview stated. The notes also claimed Shokin was told Biden had held up U.S. aid to Ukraine over the investigation.

www.foxnews.com...

Hundreds of pages of never-released memos and documents — many from inside the American team helping Burisma to stave off its legal troubles — conflict with Biden’s narrative.

Burisma’s American legal representatives met with Ukrainian officials just days after Biden forced the firing of the country’s chief prosecutor and offered “an apology for dissemination of false information by U.S. representatives and public figures” about the Ukrainian prosecutors, according to the Ukrainian government’s official memo of the meeting. The effort to secure that meeting began the same day the prosecutor's firing was announced.

The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”

thehill.com...

Then the NEXT prosecutor Lutsenko said this ....

“Unfortunately, from the first meeting with the U.S. ambassador in Kiev, [Yovanovitch] gave me a list of people whom we should not prosecute,” Lutsenko, who took his post in 2016, told Hill.TV last week.

thehill.com... tyLTCSMXxTH2gDSNVzoMXPxFVYIDPLXANheoY

Now the latest thing is Democrats attacked Lutsenko, he walked back those comments, and he was fired. Now Lutsenko is the corrupt one with a long history of being corrupt and using power for his own personal gain. So why did Biden want a guy like that in there?

Burisma's owner was under investigation, Hunter Biden was given a job, then Zlochevsky was suddenly in the clear, a new prosecutor was assigned and Zlochevsky was never investigated again.

So you are telling me Joe Biden was pissed Zlochevsky, the guy who gave Joe's son a good job, was not being investigated and was working to investigate Zlochevsky .. who just gave his son a job?

That makes sense to you?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didnt say there was a video, just alot of witnesses.
But, do you agree, someone would have to investigate the murders, to determine the facts so Congress could make a informed decision one way or the other?

It just seems that the administration and many of the trump supporters have managed to undermine much of the justice dept's capability of investigating anything, but they are also refusing to accept congess' authority to investigate also. So, how are the facts supposed to come out? Remove trump out of the picture and put in any maniacal liberal of your choice that has gone rogue. How much damage should they be allowed to do to the country, how many people should a crazed president be allowed to murder while Congress sits bickering, requests for information are ignored, people refuse to attend hearings, and court cases make their way up to the supreme court?

And, please explain to me, if impeachment isnt a criminal process, how is it the president has the right to due process? Kind of thought due process was a way to give the accused rights in criminal matters?

Oh, and guess what I am hearing today? It seems a good number of those republicans that stormed the hearing yesterday could have just walked in unchallenged BECAUSE THEY WERE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITEES!

But no matter, I am also hearing that they plan on being done with the closed hearings in a couple of weeks and will be releasing the transcripts and having open hearings.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I didnt say there was a video, just alot of witnesses.
But, do you agree, someone would have to investigate the murders, to determine the facts so Congress could make a informed decision one way or the other?

No one is claiming they can't investigate. What they can't do is investigate the President. They investigate the murder, get 50 witnesses, and bring the evidence to Congress to then impeach.

You are completely misconstruing the argument that is being made.

Using the term "nazi" is antisemitic enough for me to discount the rest of the argument, even if i agree in principle.

We have to get better than this hyperbole.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

How many women have accused trump of sexual assault? Serious question, has it reached 50 yet?
What's the rebuttal, oh ya, they are all lying!
What?? There is dead bodies? Sandy hook produced dead kids. What was the rebuttal? They weren't really dead, it was a false flag put on by the "deep state"..

Impeachment is a political process, governed by the whims of what now happens to be a fickle populace. It's fake news, fake dead kids, fake whatever doesnt coincide with what I want to believe..
A populace that has been shown to not really have a good grasp as to what the laws are by the way.

a reply to: dawnstar

None of your post has anything at all to do with the thread or my post. Please try to stay on topic.

a reply to: dawnstar

well it's not like people are outraged over a tweet that dosn't exist yet


oh wait.........


carry on

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Ok.
You claim that this is a nazi/stalinist impeachment with no legal backing.
It's been awhile since I read your op so let me know if I am wrong here..
First, there is legal backing, the constitution gives the house the responsibility to initiate the impeachment proceeding. It kind of leaves it up to the house how to decide how this should be done. There is no requirement that the house has to vote to begin an impeachment inquiry, just that they have to vote on the articles of impeachment. And, we dont really have many past cases to look back on .
Second, about the due process bit.. you admit yourself that impeachment isnt a criminal issue. But well if you want due process, that means a grand jury hearing, a closed door, very secretive grand jury hearing. Barr and his justice dept. had the opportunity to pick this case up and investigate it themselves.. they chose not to. Although it does sound like it had the merits to be. So, if anyone deprived trump of due process, it was his own justice dept.
But even so, the house has been trying to give trump similar protections while they take on the job that should have been done by the justice dept. Thus, the secretive closed door hearings while they gather the facts needed to determine if this should go forward.
There are, I believe several committees involved in these closed door hearings and each of them. have republicans on them who are being given time to ask the witnesses questions, listen to the testimonies, and probably can suggest possible future witnesses to be brought forth. And as others have pointed out on these threads.. the right to confine these hearings to just the members of the committees involved is not new! IF and when the house sends the articles of impeachment to the senate, trump will have the opportunity to have lawyers to plead his case, offer up his own evidence, know what evidence is being used against him, ect. He will probably be able to call his own witnesses, hear the testimony of the opposing sides witnesses.
So, just what is unlawful about what is being done?

And, I already addressed the nazi/stalinist part of it..
The idea that anyone is so above the law that they could shoot someone on 5th avenue and the only avenue available is to first impeach them and then listen to the crazies whine about the "process" while the executive branch fights tooth and nail to ensure that congress takes forever to obtain the information they need seems to be about how a stalinist govt would function!

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

the U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey R. Pyatt told him that the investigation has to be handled with white gloves

This was alleged by Shokin. Did it actually happen? Has Pyatt himself confirmed this, not confirmed this or neither denied or confirmed this? And where are the documents that show this happened? I look online and there's mention of documents but no documents. Are the documents even real or are the documents just Guiliani's notes?

The memo also quoted the Americans as saying they knew Shokin pursued an aggressive corruption investigation against Burisma’s owner, only to be thwarted by British allies: “These individuals noted that they had been aware that the Prosecutor General’s Office of Ukraine had implemented all required steps for prosecution … and that he was released by the British court due to the underperformance of the British law enforcement agencies.”

If Shokin was pursuing an aggressive campaign against Burisma's owner. Why do his colleagues say otherwise? His colleagues said he was lazy and spent his time bonding with oligarchs in bath houses drinking vodka. Multiple people in the government are saying otherwise.

The approach of Shokin’s office to the Burisma investigations fell into a well-practiced pattern of corruption, the anonymous prosecutor says. By the time of Biden’s intervention, there were no active investigations to speak of. l ink

I know that this is an anonymous source and may or not be a good source. However a watch dog group in Ukraine was calling for Shokins ousting. There are multiple people within the Ukraine that disagree that Shokin was actually doing anything to prosecute corruption.

Burisma's owner was under investigation, Hunter Biden was given a job, then Zlochevsky was suddenly in the clear, a new prosecutor was assigned and Zlochevsky was never investigated again.

According to other ukranian prosecuters and the ukranian watchdog group Shokin wasn't investigating anything. Even Ukranian MPs were calling for his ousting. MP Soboliev said shokin would take on cases and just dump them. The MPs attempted to oust Shokin from office once as well but didn't get enough signatures. 127 out of 150.

So you are telling me Joe Biden was pissed Zlochevsky, the guy who gave Joe's son a good job, was not being investigated and was working to investigate Zlochevsky .. who just gave his son a job?

What I'm telling you is the following.
1. Shokins colleagues knew he wasn't really doing anything.
2. A watchdog group was calling for his removal because he wasn't investigating corruption.
3. Ukrainian MP's wanted him out of there because he wasn't doing anything.
4. The IMF wanted Shokin out.
4. European Union wanted Shokin out.
5. That Biden did not act unilaterally nor did he instigate the push against Shokin despite what Trump says.

a reply to: grey580

I want to be clear. I am in no way saying I or anyone else has all the information. I am saying that there is enough of a question of what has occurred to warrant an investigation.

Both Shokin AND Lutsenko have publicly said they were told how to run investigations and who to leave alone.

We know that as soon as Shokin was gone and Lutsenko stepped in the bad guys who we wanted to get all got a free pass. We know the bad guy Shokin let go and was so bad for doing it and made Biden so angry was the guy who gave Biden's son a job. It makes zero sense.

All I want is the truth, nothing more, nothing less. I don't want constant media updates full of fake news, I want a quiet and thorough investigation and then the results with no spin or bias.

a reply to: dawnstar

Not my OP, so not sure what you mean. I told the OP his title about this being Nazi and Stalinist was over the top and a poor choice.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm all for dialectic discussion.

If in fact that Biden did do something wrong, then yes investigate. However Trump nor his personal lawyer should be involved. Because it's a conflict of interest. Maybe an impartial country could do the investigating.

originally posted by: JustJohnny
He tried to trade military funding

Yeah... except he didn't. Where in the transcript does it mention military aid/funding again?

for a foreign nation to start a legitimately fake investigation into the Biden’s.

You mean the one Ukraine re-initiated on their own in Feb, 3 months before the notorious phone call?

What evidence does trump have against the Biden’s that merits him doing that?
Biden himself, on tape, bragging about getting the prosecutor fired that was investigating his son?

He actually has zero evidence.

Except the video of Biden himself bragging about it.

Yeah, but nearly as much evidence as they have on Trump, right?

A crazy rich kid who’s daddy’s name recognition got him a job he didn’t deserve..
Yep, and Hunter even admitted it. He said himself he probably wouldn't have gotten on the Board if his last name hadn't been Biden.

Just like every one of trumps kids..

Thos crazy kids that have decades of experience and success in international business? Those kids?

The dems know they have to play it butyl the book if they are gonna try and impeach someone.

Really? Then maybe they better start (playing by the book/rules)...

Lol is right.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I'm all for dialectic discussion.

If in fact that Biden did do something wrong, then yes investigate. However Trump nor his personal lawyer should be involved. Because it's a conflict of interest. Maybe an impartial country could do the investigating.

The country involved, Ukraine, should do it and the findings turned over to the US. I have no problem with Trump saying something looks wrong and he wants them to see if there is. Now if he starts saying I need you to condemn Biden and give out false reports he is guilty then we have some wrongdoing. If all Trump wants is the truth, well, shouldn't everyone?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

What trump want was a public announcement from the ukraine govt that they were investigating the bidens along with investigating the missing server and unkraines supposed part in the Dnc hacking if my memory serves me right. And then probably a drip drip drip of manufactured information up till election day.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

As with most of what Trump does. He just plain handles things badly. The guy has no tact.

He could of just told the State Department. I think there's something fishy here. Go see and bring me your findings.

But no. He had to get involved and send Guiliani and others that had no business going over there.

If he actually went through the proper channels we wouldn't be having this discussion.

youtu.be...

Unintended consequences.

originally posted by: grey580
If he actually went through the proper channels we wouldn't be having this discussion.

He intentionally avoided the 'proper channels' because he knew they were corrupted and if he did, everything would get swept under the rug.

a reply to: tanstaafl

Not everything is a conspiracy.