Impeachment hearings

[_honorentheos]

I honestly have no idea...that is why we need a investigation. On a scale of looking bad, given all the evidence a 5 in looking very bad. There is just too much dirt out there with the Biden's to sweep it under the rug.

Your question has too many variables and unknowns. If he was guilty, it obviously helped him, if he was not guilty and just stupid, greedy, and he and his father didn't think it out, or care...it hurt both of them by appearance alone.

Plus we have two different things here, the first is... were they dirty? The second a potential cover up by firing the guy. They could be guilty and maybe even if the guy didn't get fired, it wouldn't mean automatic conviction.

This question is pretty straight forward if you look at the actual evidence. On the one hand you have Shokin and Guliani as the only ones claiming Shokin was actually trying to investigate Burisma. That's it. There are plenty of people saying it looks bad but no actual other evidence Shokin isn't lying like the corrupt MF'er he is. On the other hand, you have sources as varied as other Ukrainian officials including the Deputy PG under Shokin and the primary anti-corruption organization in Ukraine at the time pointing to Shokin as blocking the investigations. There were active protests and an attempt on Shokins life due to public outrage over his corrupt protection of oligarchs and the players tied back to Yanukovych that took place before Biden presented the demands of the White House, not demands of his own personal making. You have other Western world leaders reported in support of the demands and general recognition Shokin was corrupt and a hindrance to the reforms the west was seeking in Ukraine. It's clearly a 1 or 2 when this issue is looked at specifically.

The Salt Lake Trib does a pretty good job summarizing it:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... lt-bidens/

[_Markk]

Again...are you saying this type of pattern should be ignored? Bullough writes that Hunter is a undistinguished lawyer.

Joe's other son was involved in a accident that killed a man and was ordered to pay the mans daughters (200k or so) and he has been running away from it for a few years of so.

By `Joe's other son' are you're referring to Beau Biden? You're saying Beau Biden is running away from paying the children of a man he killed in an accident ?

This statement is very confusing.

Sorry, I made a few errors, it was his brother James that was in the Iraq and other shady deals, and his brother Frank that is ducking the family of the man that was killed.

[_Markk]

This question is pretty straight forward if you look at the actual evidence. On the one hand you have Shokin and Guliani as the only ones claiming Shokin was actually trying to investigate Burisma. That's it. There are plenty of people saying it looks bad but no actual other evidence Shokin isn't lying like the corrupt MF'er he is. On the other hand, you have sources as varied as other Ukrainian officials including the Deputy PG under Shokin and the primary anti-corruption organization in Ukraine at the time pointing to Shokin as blocking the investigations. There were active protests and an attempt on Shokins life due to public outrage over his corrupt protection of oligarchs and the players tied back to Yanukovych that took place before Biden presented the demands of the White House, not demands of his own personal making. You have other Western world leaders reported in support of the demands and general recognition Shokin was corrupt and a hindrance to the reforms the west was seeking in Ukraine. It's clearly a 1 or 2 when this issue is looked at specifically.

The Salt Lake Trib does a pretty good job summarizing it:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... lt-bidens/

There are a lot of people saying a lot of things...which is why we need an investigation. ATrump asking the President of the Ukraine for more information is certainly within the pale here. I understand you can't admit that due to your bias...but that is the the center of the argument.

Was Shokin dirty, most likely, was Kasko dirty, most likley, he was accused of fraud, ...was the Ukraine goverment dirty as a whole yes.

The prima facie case is that The VP who was in charge of handing out billions to the Ukraine, had a son, and associates of his son, being paid millions by a more than crooked "boss" that was clearly after some of the monies that Joe had to offer. he was a appointed minister of energy, of a Russian backed goverment who owned a energy company and was helping it expand while the minister.

Why are you avoiding this part of the issue? You are creating a little straw-man, that is clear as mud, with a lot of he said... she said on both sides, while ignoring the greater problem, which is clear and undeniable.

Honor...Hunter worked for a Ukrainian mob member, with Russian ties, who is now on the run, while his father was in charge of giving Billions of taxpayer dollars to a admittedly corrupt Ukrainian goverment. This is absolutely undeniable.

[_mikwut]

Res,

Ok. I'll play. 1) because there is no case or precedent to establish your definition as actually including a member of congress. 2) Because in other areas of the code a "member of congress" is separately defined as a "United States Official." https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/115 So you would be trying to add, when your definition does not specifically state, an already defined party to a separate and different definition outside of what they are already defined as. That ambiguity is unconstitutional until defined clearer. You know that. That would require some kind of serious case law to include those definitions rather than the code just stating law enforcement officer and any united states official. And I am saying that doesn't exist. 3) The plain meaning of law enforcement officer does not comply with our understanding of congress. When interpreting statutes the plain meaning is given weight over ambiguity.

Further, the part of the code I linked is close in kind to the infraction at issue between us. It doesn't make sense for the separate definitions to exist there but not in your portion of the code. It would have simply included United States Officials.

mikwut

You called me out for defending myself from being called out. You attempted to defend E with his stretch of an interpretation by circle jerking two definitions that do not apply and chastised me three times. You didn't check further definitions of members of congress in the code before doing so. A no no. As you said to me unfortunately.

Can you please explain how the code specifically defines a member of congress as a "United States Official" and does not refer to it in the portion of the code you are trying to squeeze it into but it still is somehow defined as a law enforcement officer? Especially when you know the code defines specific entities like congress or the President and would have no need to ambiguously squeeze the definition into law enforcement?

You pushed this, come back and finish it.

mikwut

[_Some Schmo]

You know you're in the cult when you're swimming in Trump corruption you can't see because you're focused on the patina of Biden corruption 10,000 miles away.

damned people are a joke.

[_Markk]

The Salt Lake Trib does a pretty good job summarizing it:
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/commenta ... lt-bidens/

LOL....are you kidding me Honor...my first point to consider?

From the article

Shokin has been and still is closely associated with Dmytro Firtash who was a close ally of formerly corrupt and Russian-backed Ukrainian President Yanukovych.

Honor...Hunter was an attorney for a mobster boss tied to that same goverment who was a minister for Yanukovych. LOL...are you kidding me!!!

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You know you're in the cult when you're swimming in Trump corruption you can't see because you're focused on the patina of Biden corruption 10,000 miles away.

damned people are a joke.

Markk still won't give a straighgforward answer as to why Trump didn't use the DoJ to conduct a probe of the Bidens. It's just endless BS and speculation about a laughable Democrat presidential candidate that Trump mistakenly thought was a political threat. All these turd birds interested in the Bidens are only in it because it distracts from their insanely venal, inept, and thoroughly corrupt President. What a damned joke they are.

- Doc

[_Markk]

I honestly have no idea...that is why we need a investigation.

What was your position on a recent investigation of Trump that had a mountain of evidence?

In short...

That it was a political joke on all sides, with bias evidence on both sides, and that the american people are getting hosed in one sense, but doing well aside from the circus .

The investigation of Trump, on this round, ran it's course and he was acquitted of any wrong doing in a purely partisan political circus.

That from the day Trump was elected the left has focused only on getting him out of office, while Trump baits them and mocks them daily on Twitter.

What is your position? ...I have to smile a bit... I am proud of you. I think this is the first time I have seen you ask a serious question and not just post a drive by snipe? Jump in and give me your opinions, I earnestly have no idea where you stand on anything beyond you quick drive bys.

[_Markk]

You know you're in the cult when you're swimming in Trump corruption you can't see because you're focused on the patina of Biden corruption 10,000 miles away.

____ people are a joke.

Markk still won't give a straighgforward answer as to why Trump didn't use the DoJ to conduct a probe of the Bidens. It's just endless ____ and speculation about a laughable Democrat presidential candidate that Trump mistakenly thought was a political threat. All these turd birds interested in the Bidens are only in it because it distracts from their insanely venal, inept, and thoroughly corrupt President. What a ____ joke they are.

- Doc

hey doc, having good day?

I have answered the question over and over...honestly. So given there is a answer out there that I am suppose to know,...please tell me what you believe is the correct answer is, I am required to give?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

You have not., and now you're just lying. You spent 12+ pages not answering the question, but rather dodging and weaving with endless BS.