Impeachment hearings

[_Markk]

That’s nice. Are you going to present any, you know, evidence of a sort? Or facts about anything regarding ‘corruption’?

Or is this it?

What cracks me up most of all is, I am accused of not reading and being shallow. Go figure...my bet is you did not even read what I pasted, and you will not cross check or explore it more. It reminds me of the Mormon adage..."don't confuse me with the facts, I have already been told what to believe."

You can comment on the paste...like why would Hunter defend Zlochevsky, or how did Hunter make all that money with no experience, while his father was leading much of the Ukraine policy, flying on air force two there with his father, while Billions were being given to the Ukraine. Why did a former justice department lawyer in the Obama presidency help get the crooked, now on the run, corrupt director of the natural gas company that received millions of taxpayer dollars...off the hook?

Like I once did when told Mormonism was a cult, you too are sticking your head in the sand..." its not true, its not true, its not true." And I am not even asking you to believe it, that is your choice, but at least get off the porch with Doc an d the rest of the clones, and dissect it, and expound on some very real facts.

take care

[_canpakes]

That’s nice. Are you going to present any, you know, evidence of a sort? Or facts about anything regarding ‘corruption’?

Or is this it?

What cracks me up most of all is, I am accused of not reading and being shallow. Go figure...my bet is you did not even read what I pasted, and you will not cross check or explore it more. It reminds me of the Mormon adage..."don't confuse me with the facts, I have already been told what to believe."

I read it. Footnotes and all. And there isn’t really any meat there.

You characterize the folks wanting facts as being in a cult, while you hang your hat on a politically-motivated conspiracy. I think you have that backwards.

[_Markk]

Then expound on it...just saying uh uh is weak and a cop out. I am challenging you to come out of your ideological comfort zone and imply a bit of critical thought here. Explain why this does not stink to high heaven?

Just start with why did Hunter, and a former Obama Justice administration counsel, help get Zlochevsky's case dismissed?

Take your time and do a little research, both pro and con to your obvious predetermined point of view. There are stories about this in several news papers and alike.

Can you concede, that "IF" it could be shown that Hunter, and by obvious default Joe was dirty, and american taxpayer dollars were being skimmed by Zlochevsky and others, that Trump's request to the Ukrainian president was valid. I am not asking you to say this is true, but just "IF" it was true.

This is a similar question I was asked in reading an anti book, when I was first reading about the negative aspects church, it took me a while to make that plunge...which I am sure many here can relate to. I asked my parents this questions many times, especially my mother, and she would just look at me with knowing eyes and say no, I can't do that.

So again can you concede that if the Biden's are dirty, Trump's request is within the pale of his "job", even if he gains personally from it?

[Guest]

Markk-


Why didn't Trump have the DOJ investigate the Bidens?


Also, why did he finally release the Ukraine aid?

[_Icarus]

Icarus,

The trial doesn't have to be about Biden for the Biden issue to be relevant. It goes to the president's state of mind.

mikwut

But Biden is irrelevant and obviously the Trumpers are trying to make it about Biden. And you know very well that the reason the Republicans wanted so desperately to get Biden on the stand has nothing to do with them trying to ascertain Trump's "state of mind," which is irrelevant. Trump knew he was soliciting aid from a foreign country to help with his 2020 campaign, and his ludicrous rationalization as to why is irrelevant to the fact that he was committing an impeachable offense. Republicans were also wanting to call Adam Schiff, the Whistleblower, etc. All irrelevant to Trump's trial but would serve them for the purposes of changing media narratives and showboating for his base. That is by definition turning Congress into a circus which is what they so desperately want because it is how Trump gets people to stop paying attention to his actual transgressions.

[_mikwut]

Icarus,

Anyway, Trumps state of mind, his motive is most certainly relevant and it is simply absurd to deny that. I don't deny a strategy very well might have been to threaten a circus, that's just the game that both sides play. But to claim Trumps motive is irrelevant is just wrong.

mikwut

[Guest]

LOL...I thought Trump was accused of going after Biden?

You're not very good at paying attention. Trump was impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Trump uses the so-called Biden corruption as his excuse for engaging in corrupt behavior of his own, but even if we grant that this is true, it is still irrelevant to the trial which is asked to vote on Trump's guilt, not Biden's.

If George says he killed his wife because back in 2014 she slept with Fred, do you think a judge is going to let the defense attorney subpoena Fred and all his friends and family to testify to something that is entirely irrelevant to the fact that George committed murder?

I get that you as a clone are just following in due order as commanded, what throws me off a bit is Honor, he is usually above all the clone crap, and generally is open to critical thought.

You're literally citing Giuliani and Solomon conspiracy theory crap as your basis for investigating Biden. You're literally repeating the same idiotic nonsense that started on 4chan /Alex Jones years ago and has become a meme of sorts only because our commander in chief is an overgrown child who believes anything he hears which serves his corrupt purposes. He told Ukraine to look into the DNC server and Crowdstrike, two talking points that are laughable to anyone who has actually paid any attention to this fiasco. Both have been thoroughly debunked, but Trump clings to it like a 90 year old senile man clings to the remote control. What's actually true doesn't matter to him and despite having vasts amounts of credible intelligence at his disposal, he opts to toss US intelligence out the window because it doesn't tell him what he wants to believe.

One thing is apparent, and in all reality Trump might be dirty in going after Biden the wrong way, and for selfish reasons, but also Biden is deserving and far more dirty than Trump in all this, big time.

Based on no evidence whatsoever. The so called investigation he was accused of stopping we never ongoing to begin with. The person Biden was accused of ousting because he would look into corruption, was himself the source of corruption which every head of state supported being ousted.

I believe it was part of which Dershowitz was implying, for those that watched the trial...in that even if Trump gained from Biden being found dirty, it was his being dirty that counts. Read the papers and all the information that is out there if you really what to know and care, or just goose step along.

What you mean to say is read John Solomon, the guy who was demoted by the Hill and forced to start his own outlet, and was reprimanded for fabricating documents and embellishing evidence to meet the narrative he wants to create. This was the guy behind the "Uranium One" storyline. Nuff said.

[_Icarus]

Icarus,

Anyway, Trumps state of mind, his motive is most certainly relevant and it is simply absurd to deny that. I don't deny a strategy very well might have been to threaten a circus, that's just the game that both sides play. But to claim Trumps motive is irrelevant is just wrong.

mikwut

We know for a fact that his stated motive about caring about "corruption" is bogus since

1. he never once mentioned "corruption" to Zelensky (only mentioned Burisma and the Bidens)
2. he never once blocked aid to Israel despite Netanyahu being indicted on fraud and bribery charges.
3. he never once expressed any interest in corruption in countries far more corrupt (i.e. Saudi Arabia)
4. he never once told his justice department to investigate Burisma until his third year in office when national polling showed Joe Biden had a double digit lead over him.

So even in your wildest dreams, assuming Biden was somehow acting corruptly and admitted to it, none of this proves Trump's "state of mind."

[Guest]

Then expound on it...just saying uh uh is weak and a cop out. I am challenging you to come out of your ideological comfort zone and imply a bit of critical thought here.

This is great advice, but you should also be considering it for your own approach.

Obviously, much smarter folks than I - and with far greater resources - have thrown serious effort into this, and the conclusions range from, “There’s nothing there...”, to “There’s nothing there, but they made a lot of money, so it must be a corrupt deal”. Considering that the fellow that you’ll vote for has installed his entire family into his business and all are protected from having to reveal their tax docs (you at least have Uncle Joe’s, what’s Trump’s problem?) then your argument, consistently applied, would implicate the entire Trump clan in a web of corruption of tremendous worldwide proportion. But you aren’t going there, are you?

Fun fact: Oprah Winfrey is on the board of Weight Watchers. Chelsea Clinton was on the board of Expedia. Meg Whitman of eBay fame then joined the board of Hewlett-Packard back in the day. So just pointing at the salary or name recognition of a board member isn’t going to cut it. That alone does not prove ‘corruption’ given the pervasiveness of the practice. There has even been an economic paper written* about appointing celebrity names to boards, inasmuch as merely doing that can cause an increase in the company’s perceived value or reputation.

So, yes - let’s see something other than, “someone made lots of money, so the deal must be corrupt!”, because with that, you’re basically calling out capitalism as intrinsically corrupt.



*Ferris, Kim, Nishikawa, Unlu: Reaching for the Stars: The Appointment of Celebrities to Corporate Boards, International Review of Economics, 2011, vol 58, pp 337-358.

[_canpakes]

Icarus,

Anyway, Trumps state of mind, his motive is most certainly relevant and it is simply absurd to deny that.

mikwut

As is a belief in Santa Claus relevant to a child’s state of mind, with a similar focus on self.

You’re doing a great job of proving the House Manager position.