About time as Pelosi will hold a vote this week on impeachment

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Ah, you stealth edited.

What crime is Hunter Biden suspected of in the United States?

Also, as far as the Mueller investigation, the crimes were COMMITTED in the US, therefore, the US has jurisdiction.

Allegedly, Hunter's possible crimes took place in Ukraine, and the US has ZERO jurisdiction there.

So, try again. Why would the President ask for help with an American committing crimes in the Ukraine?

In the Russia investigation foreign actors were indicted for weilding influence, illegally, in the US.

Your question plays exactly to my point. The real debate to have, legitmately, is what grounds were there to initiate a review of the Biden's activity. IMO, Hunter Biden, whilst the beneficiary here, is not the main concern. The concern is whether Joe Biden directed foreign policy to enrich and protect his son. If that were the case , it is illegal under US law - Federal Bribery Statute.

Yes, Russians committed crimes on US soil as did Manafort et. al. US soil, US jurisdiction.

Why aside from his political party, would anyone believe that Joe Biden did that? The deal regarding Shokin that so much as been made about ... the US and EU were all lobbying Ukraine for his removal, that can't be dropped at BIden's doorstep.

And if Biden committed these crimes (what crimes by the way) why would Trump be investigating them in Ukraine?

If Biden committed the crimes here, the evidence is here, right?

You see, your theory just doesn't stand up. However, if we believe that Trump asked the President of Ukraine to reopen some past investigation SOLEY because the name invovled was Biden ... that makes it fairly obvious that the motivation is politically based.

Again, what crimes did Joe Biden commit in the US. Is Joe Biden under investigation in the US? Or not.

If Trump decides Biden needs to be investigated, then yeah, he's under investigation.
Given his son receieved hundreds of thousands of dollars from a board position, just after travelling with his dad to Ukraine on official US govt business, I'd say it's a fairly reasonable proposition to direct an investigation into whether Joe Biden abused the power of his office.

originally posted by: SailorJerry

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: HalWesten

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump is not entitled to launch investigations on Ukranian soil.

That's not what UKTruth said. Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate the prior crimes, not for permission for the US to investigate the former Ukraine government officials.

That's kicking the can down the road, (and not what UK said) but sure, so why is the President of the US asking a foreign power to investigate crimes in their country?

What is the reason, the motivation, what would be driving the President to do so?

Forget that the Ukraine ALREADY investigated Biden and found no crimes for the moment.

Why was Trump willing to bet the farm on a server that doesn't apparently exist and a criminal investigation in another country?

Because Joe Biden was potentially using his office to enrich his son.
That has nothing to do with Ukrainian juristiction.

Lets not forget that apparently Joe got some of that money too actualy

Allegedly yes - which is one more reason to investigate.
No reasonable, non-partisan, person could look at the events that occurred in the Ukraine whilst Biden was running point on foreign policy and conclude there is zero reason to investigate it - imo.

Just look at all the investigations into Trump - even people staying at his hotel has initiated an investigation... but for some reason if Trump decides to launch an investigation it's somehow illegal... that's a simple case of Democrats - by media proxy - attempting to criminalise the President's use of his constitutional authority.

Biden is just a minor offense compared to the missing 1.8 Billion dollars of aid money. We will see.

This video will help make sense of the seriousness of the deep state activities. www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Biden is just a minor offense compared to the missing 1.8 Billion dollars of aid money. We will see.

This video will help make sense of the seriousness of the deep state activities. www.youtube.com...

Indeed - there is a lot to uncover in Ukraine relating to the involvement of US officials.
The information Trump is after is related to all of it - not just Biden.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then why did Trump need the Ukraine to help find something in the Ukraine?

What? That is like saying why did he ask the worker at Gander Mountain where the Trijicon RMR Type 2 Adjustable LED Red Dot Sight with 3.25-MOA Reticle are at. Because they should know.

The evidence then is here, in Biden's emails, papers, phone calls, etc.

I think the evidence is a video of him admitting what he did.

The story doesn't hold even a drop of water to anyone that's not a Trumpian.

Of coarse it doesn't, from what you just posted I expect that their vessels, in which to hold water, has too many holes in it to catch any.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: 727Sky

*shrugs* Cool. Vote. Go for it. Been asking for this for a while now.

Why are y'all in such a rush?

Why wouldn't you want the Democrats to waste as much time as possible on this if it is a "nothing burger" as so many ardent Trump supporters keep claiming?

No, we want the Republicans to get as much information as possible to expose the liars and criminals on the left as soon as possible. Besides, if it does actually go to the senate for a trial, the Democrat candidates for president in 2020 have to stay in their offices and can't campaign, and they're NOT going to want to do that.

The Dems have been screaming they have all the evidence they need for three years, it's time for them to put up or shut up.

Since beginning they have said they were aiming to tie this up at the end of October with a vote so why are people acting so surprised? Is it because it is going the way they said it would?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
Biden is just a minor offense compared to the missing 1.8 Billion dollars of aid money. We will see.

This video will help make sense of the seriousness of the deep state activities. www.youtube.com...

Indeed - there is a lot to uncover in Ukraine relating to the involvement of US officials.
The information Trump is after is related to all of it - not just Biden.

I would venture to say that for Trump its not even about Biden, thats just the narrative the rabid left are pushing to try and smear and deflect. Hell look at the transcripts of the call, its mostly not even about Biden, it alludes to the meddling in the elections far more

His intent is to expose the deepstate coupe from democrats to RHINOS, who are trying to subvert the government and the will of the people

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Since beginning they have said they were aiming to tie this up at the end of October with a vote so why are people acting so surprised? Is it because it is going the way they said it would?

I'm not.

Just curious though, what are they going to impeach him for?

Does anyone know yet?

a reply to: Gryphon66

It's not about being in a rush. It's about wanting a process that is transparent and allows for the minority to play a meaningful role i.e. call witnesses etc.

As is, we have a partisan closed door process which seems to be aimed more at driving the media narrative via cherry picked leaks than anything else. I'm thinking internal polling is probably starting to tell them a lot of people aren't buying it. They may be ok with an inquiry but also want it done above board.

This isn't a vote on articles. It's a vote to have a more open and bipartisan inquiry. Maybe, after a few weeks of narrative driving leaks, they finally got enough votes to go ahead with it.

a reply to: UKTruth

Okay, but ... everyone knew back in what, 2014 that Hunter Biden took the job at Burisma. State Department officials supposedly advised against it.

Fairly obvious that Biden got the job because of his last name, but then again, that's not a crime.

Burisma was investigated for corruption back in 2010-2012, since Hunter Biden didn't join the company until 2014, he was "cleared" as it were.

But now, you're telling me that Joe Biden is under investigation for crimes he committed ... five years later? Has this been announced?

Is there any evidence that Biden did this? Did it only come up, say, recently?

Where was the investigation for two years under Trump when Biden hadn't announced his candidacy?

Wasn't the Justice department concerned with "corruption" then?

Sounds more and more like this "Joe Biden corruption matter" is a recent development.

a reply to: highvein

No, it's not like saying that at all. Red herring and smelly too.

Yeah about that evidence ... diplomats in the EU and the US were all trying to get Ukraine to dump Shokin.

Biden telling a tall tale about it later only emphasized that he was Obama's message boy at the time.

But, hey, according to you guys, President's can apparently do whatever they want when communicating with foreighn powers, right?

So, when did the investigation of Joe Biden start? And what specific crimes is he accused of in the US?

Unless Trump's request was not based on any real evidence aside from "His name is Biden."

Think it through.

a reply to: SailorJerry

Of course they're pushing that narrative, without Biden tied to the Ukraine phone call they have nothing.

Thier account is that trump used his power as president to pursue an investigation on a political adversary. So with out Biden its just another phone call.

My opinion, the democrats are gonna eff up here. If they take a vote and vote to impeach, then that will satisfy their extremely left constituents, but at the same time pushing away their moderates. And then if the whole thing fails, which is a good chance, not only do they have to answer for that, but they have to answer for all the dirt that the trump legal team digs up. Even if it goes all the way through and it's successful and trump is ousted, that still leaves pence and with half of population being pissed about the impeachment, there's no guarantee they take the white house in 2020. Not to mention all the democratic noms that have to answer for their vote, be it against or for.

a reply to: HalWesten

The liars and whatnot "on the left"? So anyone who is a Democrat is suspect?

Isn't that just a bit ... partisan? You're okay with assuming people are automatically guilty because of their political party?

Yeah, we've heard the talking point about Bernie, Liz, and Kamala being stuck in the Senate. SO?

Impeachment has been going on for three years? I could have sworn it started in September.

a reply to: elDooberino

If the Republicans wanted to play a meaningful role, perhaps they shouldn't have changed the rules for subpoenas in 2015.

Also, you can reference Trey Gowdy and company for the closed door investigations as well.

You forget to mention that the Republican members of the Committees are present and can ask questions as needed.

Face it the whole "secrecy" thing is a White House talking point, nothing more.

So ... why don't the experts here help get the story straight ...

Trump wanted help with an investigation from the Ukraine regarding illegal acts of Joe Biden while he was VP that would have benefited Hunter BIden ... but nobody knows what Biden was supposed to have done?

Unless it's just another occasion of Trump looking for foreign dirt? I mean, he's admitted he would be glad to take such on his enemies if offered.

Here's the main point: what crime specifically is Biden being investigated for? 'Corruption' is not a crime ... it's a talking point.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Closed door testimony.

No available transcripts.

Cherry picked leaks.

Minority unable to call witnesses.

Face it, many people see the above and don't like it. Otherwise, this vote wouldn't be occurring.

a reply to: Lumenari

www.senate.gov... i dont think they (the house /senate) can be impeached its called censure and expulsion

xpulsion (see below for Censure cases) Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership. Of that number, fourteen were charged with support of the Confederacy during the Civil War. In several other cases, the Senate considered expulsion proceedings but either found the member not guilty or failed to act before the member left office. In those cases, corruption was the primary cause of complaint. In the entire course of the Senate's history, only four members have been convicted of crimes. They were: Joseph R. Burton (1905), John Hipple Mitchell (1905), Truman H. Newberry (1920), and Harrison Williams (1981). Newberry's conviction was later overturned. Mitchell died. Burton, Newberry, and Williams resigned before the Senate could act on their expulsion. United States Senate Expulsion Cases Date: 1797 Member: William Blount (R-TN) Charge: Anti-Spanish conspiracy; treason Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1808 Member: John Smith (R-OH) Charge: Disloyalty/Treason Result: Not Expelled Note: Expulsion failed 19 to 10--less than the necessary two-thirds majority. At request of the Ohio legislature, Smith resigned two weeks after the vote. (His counsel was Francis Scott Key.) ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: James M. Mason (D-VA) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: Robert M.T. Hunter (D-VA) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: Thomas L. Clingman (D-NC) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: Thomas Bragg (D-NC) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: James Chesnut, Jr. (D-SC) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: Alfred O.P. Nicholson (D-TN) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled ---------------------------------- Date: 1861 Member: William K. Sebastian (D-AR) Charge: Support for Confederate rebellion Result: Expelled Note: On March 3, 1877, the Senate reversed its decision to expel Sebastian. Because Sebastian had died in 1865, his children were paid an amount equal to his Senate salary between the time of his expulsion and the date of his death.

sorry for bad formatting but its like impeachment just a different name

This is no Impeachment vote at all,

In a letter sent to Democratic House lawmakers, Pelosi, D-Calif., said the resolution "affirms the ongoing, existing investigation" and "establishes the procedure" for future investigative steps.

FOX

From Pelosi's Press Release, I've bolded pertinent wording,

This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation.

Link

More Kabuki Theater from democrats pretending that they are taking an actual impeachment vote, leading the public to believe its whats being done when all this is is an "affirmation" of more of the same kangaroo court star chamber crap thats ongoing.

That's NOT an Impeachment vote! its game playing so they don't give other side due process.

a reply to: elDooberino

And all those were established by the Republican Majority in the House in 2015.

Sauce for the goose. Face it, many people see this for what it is, the entire Republican party scrambling to provide cover for a senile old man that is still useful to them.

See how that works?