A question the left won't answer?

originally posted by: loam
The real irony is that if ever there was a Democratic presidential candidate uniquely vulnerable to the same kind of investigation abuse and rigor endured by Trump, it would be Biden.

How does that saying go? Be careful what you wish for.

The Democrats have trashed our constitution and placed on its head nearly every convention of American political governance in an attempt to get Trump. If they think a President Biden will now be immune from all of these precendents they've set over the last 4 years, then they truly are more delusional than even I have given them credit for.

If you believe in karma, and Biden wins the presidency, those next four years will be a master class lesson in what goes around comes around. Only I doubt Biden will survive any of it.

Please elucidate, in article and clause, where the Democrats have trashed the Constitution.

originally posted by: JoseGarcia

originally posted by: network dude
I know I have asked it a few time, and never seen a response. But perhaps others have and there is a reasonable answer to this.

Question:
If any evidence exists that Either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did ANYTHING corrupt while in Ukraine, anything at all, would't that totally negate the impeachment, and all the arguments over what Trump did or said? If corruption exists, or existed, his asking that it be looked into would not only be important, but necessary.

If that idea is off base, I'd love to hear why.

JOE BIDEN IS ON VIDEO BRAGGING ABOUT FORCING THE UKRAINE TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER BIDEN'S CORRUPTION BY THREATENING TO WITHHOLD $1.X BILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

www.youtube.com...

And how did Biden directly profit from that? How much did he make? What were the details of the transactions?

Of course, the Marxist globalist oligarchy tries to keep awareness of that minimized & certainly off their very controlled media.

But the video is widely available.

And Juliani has dozens of documents & recorded interviews proving such corruption, as well.

Guiliani should, therefore, present his evidence. Even though he can't appear in court for Trump, surely the AG can appoint someone to prosecute?

I don't understand why such evidence isn't shoved in the face of every liberal idiot politico 24/7.

I don't understand either.

If they have the evidence, where is it?

originally posted by: game over man
a reply to: Alien Abduct

You're biased to the right...the mud pit is 99.9% right wingers...grow up.

But you're still wrong, the OP knew what the left said about Biden/Ukraine, dismissed it, and made another right wing circle jerk thread. How was I supposed to know that he knew how the left responded all along? He didn't admit to it til page 5. That is trolling. Otherwise I wouldn't have posted in the CNN vs Fox thread at all if the OP made a more thorough OP. I could care less about CNN and Fox having different spins on things, and unfortunately ATS, especially right wing conspirators don't have any interest in Disney, AT&T, Fox, Comcast, Time Warner etc how they all relate... because you've put all your eggs in the Trump basket. Snoozefest.

Do you want to debate the counter argument with Obama's hot mic?

He used his position to ask for "space" and in return he didnt give Ukraine weapons or install missile interceptors in Poland....

Lolz🤪

a reply to: network dude

Did you ever think about why there is no response? I thought not. Let me clue you in, most people don't give a #.

Base!

a reply to: network dude

Should the Trump Administration expose Schiffs set up and render the entire impeachment null and void?

Or, should they play along and use the impeachment trial to expose Joe and Hunter Biden corruption?

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

Blackmail? I'm afraid I'll need you to explain how Zalinsky was pressured, or forced to......not comply with Trump's request.

Ukraine is under pressure from Russia so the threat by Trump of withholding military funding and with the risk of distancing Ukraine from an important ally like the US would seem to me to be pressure enough.

But he sold them Javelin missiles, and didn't even bother to tell them he was withholding the aid. And how do you reconcile the previous administrations actions, if Ukraine was in such danger from Russia? from the sound of it, NOT giving the aid, is akin to a war crime. Should Obama be brought before the UN?

Perhaps, but Biden told the Ukraine that he would cut funding if the Ukrainian Prosecutor General didn't start earning his pay. He didn't cut the funding.

Trump held up the funding and the Ukrainians were told about it afterwards.

It's like someone saying "Halt or I'll shoot" compared with someone who shoots first.

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: Byrd

originally posted by: network dude

but does it negate the entire process regardless of the method used?

Yes, as you might recall from any number of cop shows (or cases tossed out of courts.) FindLaw has a nice summary of this: criminal.findlaw.com...

I suspect that some readers are not aware that it's actually a violation of the 4th Amendment of the Constitution: en.wikipedia.org...

Wait, so the entire IC is against Trump, and lied and cheated to try to get him (as has been proven FISA court, ect.) but he was supposed to trust that they would be totally on his side, when he asked them to look into the corruption in Ukraine? You are supposed to be pretty smart. Explain that please.

The method he employed is against the Constitutional Amendment (4) that guarantees due process and a fair search.

Are you saying that the President should be above the Constitution (and able to, for instance, negate the 2nd Amendment by a stroke of the pen and that no court could overturn this on constitutional grounds?)

No, and I don't claim to understand constitutional law, I can only go on what I have heard and learned. And I remember hearing about some agreement the US had with Ukraine in regards to all this corruption.

But if Trump went against the constitution and broke the law, I would think that might be one of the articles of impeachment, don't you?

Covered under "abuse of power."

The Constitution (which Mr. Trump swore to uphold in the oath of office) is quite interesting. I remember learning about it in Civics and reading the document. It was kind of a legal slog, but I felt it was important to read back when i was in school. Can't say that I'm anywhere near good enough on it, but I do remember basic rights and how the government is supposed to operate.

Civics, I'm afraid, is one of those boring topics that got tossed in favor of testing. You had to be kind of a government nerd to love it.

Edited to add: this has been covered in the news sources that I read. Perhaps your news sources neglected or minimized it?

You have a history of bashing all republicans Byrd. Obama i remember you would defend all day long.

Anyway IF trump is guilty of abuse of power then all past presidents Obama included should also be retroactively impeached and their presidential pay. Oh please open up witnesses during the impeachment and see so many plead the 5ths they could play a concert.
In civics you should had learned we do not put people in jail or punish them without real evidence not just opinions.
The Ukes got their money with no pre conditions but you insist they are lying. And why believe Bolton? he also was a person you didnt like from Bushs days. why like him now?

I dont liek trumps personality,but i do like to see things get done in the US's interest.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JoseGarcia

originally posted by: network dude
I know I have asked it a few time, and never seen a response. But perhaps others have and there is a reasonable answer to this.

Question:
If any evidence exists that Either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did ANYTHING corrupt while in Ukraine, anything at all, would't that totally negate the impeachment, and all the arguments over what Trump did or said? If corruption exists, or existed, his asking that it be looked into would not only be important, but necessary.

If that idea is off base, I'd love to hear why.

JOE BIDEN IS ON VIDEO BRAGGING ABOUT FORCING THE UKRAINE TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER BIDEN'S CORRUPTION BY THREATENING TO WITHHOLD $1.X BILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

www.youtube.com...

And how did Biden directly profit from that? How much did he make? What were the details of the transactions?

Of course, the Marxist globalist oligarchy tries to keep awareness of that minimized & certainly off their very controlled media.

But the video is widely available.

And Juliani has dozens of documents & recorded interviews proving such corruption, as well.

Guiliani should, therefore, present his evidence. Even though he can't appear in court for Trump, surely the AG can appoint someone to prosecute?

I don't understand why such evidence isn't shoved in the face of every liberal idiot politico 24/7.

I don't understand either.

If they have the evidence, where is it?

I got home from work at 3 pm central time.

I turned on the impeachment trial almost immediately.

The president's lawyers made a complete case that Biden and his family were worth investigating.

You want Trump removed from office because you trust Hunter Bidens (coke head) story over the President of the United States of America......


Lolz🤪

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Alien Abduct

2 U.S. Code CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL

He didnt notify congress of the hold per the law because he was trying to use it to pressure Ukraine and if it got public it would ruin his plans.

Interesting. Why didnt the Democrats cite this law in there impeachment proceedings? In fact not a word of "quid pro quo"....why is that?

Because abuse of power if a far larger issue, bribery (which is one type of quid pro quo) is what the is accused of and well as failure to comply with congressional oversight.

Also, if you read the law their is no criminal penalty only civil for failure to comply and then that is only to get the money moving.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: network dude

Blackmail? I'm afraid I'll need you to explain how Zalinsky was pressured, or forced to......not comply with Trump's request.

Ukraine is under pressure from Russia so the threat by Trump of withholding military funding and with the risk of distancing Ukraine from an important ally like the US would seem to me to be pressure enough.

But he sold them Javelin missiles, and didn't even bother to tell them he was withholding the aid. And how do you reconcile the previous administrations actions, if Ukraine was in such danger from Russia? from the sound of it, NOT giving the aid, is akin to a war crime. Should Obama be brought before the UN?

Perhaps, but Biden told the Ukraine that he would cut funding if the Ukrainian Prosecutor General didn't start earning his pay. He didn't cut the funding.

Trump held up the funding and the Ukrainians were told about it afterwards.

It's like someone saying "Halt or I'll shoot" compared with someone who shoots first.

Biden used blackmail in that deal then apparently since pressuring is that now right? And By doing his job is code for do what we say or else when it comes to him.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: network dude

Did you ever think about why there is no response? I thought not. Let me clue you in, most people don't give a #.

Base!

Except the divisionists of your country...keep the hate going what else do you have to do. No progress in sight.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Alien Abduct

2 U.S. Code CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL

He didnt notify congress of the hold per the law because he was trying to use it to pressure Ukraine and if it got public it would ruin his plans.

Interesting. Why didnt the Democrats cite this law in there impeachment proceedings? In fact not a word of "quid pro quo"....why is that?

Because abuse of power if a far larger issue, bribery (which is one type of quid pro quo) is what the is accused of and well as failure to comply with congressional oversight.

Also, if you read the law their is no criminal penalty only civil for failure to comply and then that is only to get the money moving.

Ok if there is no criminal penalty....what is the point? And that was IF th emoney was not moving which was done before the 45 days in session.

originally posted by: Middleoftheroad
Trump is already entitled to look into Biden corruption, it's literally part of his job.

No that is the job of the Attorney General's departments.

Trump's primary role is to defend the constitution. It's in his oath.

It's not Trump's fault Biden decided to run for president right after he realized Trump was looking for corruption in Ukraine.

This is literally how all these politicians get rich. They hide their corruption in foreign aid by enriching their families by placing them on boards of corrupt companies with little to no experience. Hell, John Kerry's son was on the Burisma board as well and they wonder why he's running around trying to push foreign policy and blatantly violating the Hatch Act.

Please post how much Biden made from his dealings with Ukraine.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: network dude

Did you ever think about why there is no response? I thought not. Let me clue you in, most people don't give a #.

Base!

Except the divisionists of your country...keep the hate going what else do you have to do. No progress in sight.

Division.

a reply to: chr0naut

Executive Power is duty to execute and enforce the laws passed by Congress.

So, if it is a law, that corruption is an illegal act, then it is the duty of the President to enforce that law.

I think you are also misunderstanding something, it is not the duty of the President to enforce our laws in other countries, but to enforce ours laws as it applies to US Citizens who interact with other countries.

So, it is the duty of the President to investigate the actions of Joe and Hunter Biden, as it pertains to interactions with Ukraine. Joe Biden overtly bragged about withholding foreign aid, in direct contradiction to Congress, (the same thing the House is now charging Trump with) who had authorized that aid to be given, in order to get the Ukrainian prosecutor, who was investigating Hunter Biden’s affiliated Ukrainian company, Burisma Holdings. The question is, was this prosecutor corrupt? and doing something illegal. OR, was he doing his job, investigating the illegal activity of Burisma Holdings, and was getting too close to the illegal activities of Hunter and Joe Biden?

The fact that Hunter Biden, or more correctly, his company and associates were paid so much money, despite having so little experience in the area, lends credence to the fact that something illegal was happening.

originally posted by: Scepticaldem

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: JoseGarcia

originally posted by: network dude
I know I have asked it a few time, and never seen a response. But perhaps others have and there is a reasonable answer to this.

Question:
If any evidence exists that Either Joe Biden or Hunter Biden did ANYTHING corrupt while in Ukraine, anything at all, would't that totally negate the impeachment, and all the arguments over what Trump did or said? If corruption exists, or existed, his asking that it be looked into would not only be important, but necessary.

If that idea is off base, I'd love to hear why.

JOE BIDEN IS ON VIDEO BRAGGING ABOUT FORCING THE UKRAINE TO FIRE THE PROSECUTOR INVESTIGATING HUNTER BIDEN'S CORRUPTION BY THREATENING TO WITHHOLD $1.X BILLION OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

www.youtube.com...

And how did Biden directly profit from that? How much did he make? What were the details of the transactions?

Of course, the Marxist globalist oligarchy tries to keep awareness of that minimized & certainly off their very controlled media.

But the video is widely available.

And Juliani has dozens of documents & recorded interviews proving such corruption, as well.

Guiliani should, therefore, present his evidence. Even though he can't appear in court for Trump, surely the AG can appoint someone to prosecute?

I don't understand why such evidence isn't shoved in the face of every liberal idiot politico 24/7.

I don't understand either.

If they have the evidence, where is it?

I got home from work at 3 pm central time.

I turned on the impeachment trial almost immediately.

The president's lawyers made a complete case that Biden and his family were worth investigating.

You want Trump removed from office because you trust Hunter Bidens (coke head) story over the President of the United States of America......

Lolz🤪

Yes. Because Trump lies frequently, it makes sense to assume that anything he says might be untrue. So then, being wary of possible deception, you investigate. At this point in time there is no evidence that supports what Trump says Biden did.

Biden may have acted corruptly. If he did, it doesn't excuse Trump for doing the same thing. If Biden didn't do anything wrong, then Trump falsely accused someone for his own advantage. There is no way that Trump comes out of this looking clean.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: Alien Abduct

originally posted by: Pyle
a reply to: Alien Abduct

2 U.S. Code CHAPTER 17B—IMPOUNDMENT CONTROL

He didnt notify congress of the hold per the law because he was trying to use it to pressure Ukraine and if it got public it would ruin his plans.

Interesting. Why didnt the Democrats cite this law in there impeachment proceedings? In fact not a word of "quid pro quo"....why is that?

Because abuse of power if a far larger issue, bribery (which is one type of quid pro quo) is what the is accused of and well as failure to comply with congressional oversight.

Also, if you read the law their is no criminal penalty only civil for failure to comply and then that is only to get the money moving.

But the constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors or treason". I didnt see the Democrats state that President Trump had committed any high crimes, misdemeanors or treason, why not?

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: network dude

Did you ever think about why there is no response? I thought not. Let me clue you in, most people don't give a #.

Base!

Except the divisionists of your country...keep the hate going what else do you have to do. No progress in sight.

Division.

Network Dude, I thought you were better than this. Oh, the disappointment continues.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: loam
The real irony is that if ever there was a Democratic presidential candidate uniquely vulnerable to the same kind of investigation abuse and rigor endured by Trump, it would be Biden.

How does that saying go? Be careful what you wish for.

The Democrats have trashed our constitution and placed on its head nearly every convention of American political governance in an attempt to get Trump. If they think a President Biden will now be immune from all of these precendents they've set over the last 4 years, then they truly are more delusional than even I have given them credit for.

If you believe in karma, and Biden wins the presidency, those next four years will be a master class lesson in what goes around comes around. Only I doubt Biden will survive any of it.

Please elucidate, in article and clause, where the Democrats have trashed the Constitution.

Watch Kenneth STarrs testimony or Alan Dershowitz. Both have spoken at length about this today. Youtube will have it.

a reply to: Alien Abduct

But the constitution says "high crimes and misdemeanors or treason". I didnt see the Democrats state that President Trump had committed any high crimes, misdemeanors or treason, why not?

Trump has committed treason against the deep state by calling out the state sponsored corruption in Ukraine. The Democrats cannot publicly bring up this talking point as they will have to admit to their own corruption. The people in the back rooms of congress will be talking about this with the impeachment. Lindsey Graham it trying to cover it up. Mitt Romney is flip flopping on it.

Technically, a parking ticket classifies as a misdemeanor. It does not have to be much of a crime. What is important with impeachment is support by the Senate. How does Trump drain the swamp without losing too much support from the Senators?