Impeachment hearings

[_canpakes]

canpakes wrote...

Why didn’t Trump just ask his own DoJ to look into this alleged corruption, as opposed to asking the nation that he was accusing of corruption?

The question just expanded a bit...see bold, but the answer remains the same.

What answer was that?

Anyways the answer remains basically the same,

What answer was that?

Trump did not have to ask the DOJ to go ask the President, in that he has that authority, and in my opinion duty, to do so if he see's there is corruption...

To simplify: you can’t tell me why he didn’t engage his own DoJ, but you’re telling me that it was his duty to do so?

Then, why didn’t he engage his own DoJ?

whether the goverment is corrupt or not is a non sequitur, Trump obviously believed he could get information from Z. so the DoJ could further the investigation and analyze the information to see if the information is valid or pertinent.

Why didn’t he engage his own DoJ to work with Zelensky, then?

How does this not answer you question,

Because you are not answering why Trump did not engage his own DoJ.

are you saying Trump was out of bound for setting the table for an investigation?

There was no ‘table setting’. Actual table setting would be to have approached the DoJ, and asking them to take a look.

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

[_Doctor Steuss]

Since Manafort (and the Trump Campaign) have entered the conversation, I think it’s worth remembering that one of the only geopolitical things changed in the Republican Party Platform, with Trump as the nominee, had to do with the US’s stance on Ukraine.

[_Markk]

He was setting the table for the DOJ by asking a government that was too corrupt to give money to, to conduct an investigation?

Yes, that is my answer...explain why, right or wrong, it is not a valid answer to the question? They delivered the monies, ahead of the deadline, like I said to pakes, that is a non sequitur in regards to the original question. There in no evidence of a quid pro quo that you are trying to now inject into the question.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administra ... up-ukraine

[_Some Schmo]

Markk's answer to the question, "Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?" is that "Trump didn't have to."

What Markk fails to understand is that if this were a valid thing to investigate, his first step would be to enlist the help of his DoJ. It wasn't valid, though, so Markk doesn't have an answer.

He's not answering the question, because he doesn't understand the process. He certainly doesn't want to understand either.

It's what you call your basic willful ignorance.

[_Markk]

There was no ‘table setting’. Actual table setting would be to have approached the DoJ, and asking them to take a look.

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

LOL...Have you (guys) read the transcript of the phone call...how many times did Trump tell Z. that he was going to get the DoJ (Barr) involved? The whistle blower even supported that. How is he not setting the table for the DoJ in the phone call?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics ... index.html

Also, are you backing off your earlier answer to the answer of the question which was that he didn't becasue their was not enough evidence?

In review...one more time,

Your original answer to the mystery question was..."Great question. The answer is that Trump apparently perceived no need to do so, given the lack of any real evidence indicating corruption." viewtopic.php?p=1215349#p1215349

Are you changing your mind?

Tish's answer to the mystery question is ... "If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?"

Doc is just sitting on the porch parroting Jersey Girl who is waiting for one of you guys to tell her what the correct answer should be.

[_MissTish]

Tish's answer to the mystery question is ... "If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?"

You clearly don't understand anything I've said, if you think this above was my point or was my answer to my question.

[_Markk]

Tish's answer to the mystery question is ... "If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?"

You clearly don't understand anything I've said, if you think this above was my point or was my answer to my question.

Then restate or state the answer to your question...is it the same as canpakes? If the answer is a simple one, everyone knows, then state it?

I understand what you said, it is just nonsense.

[Guest]

There was no ‘table setting’. Actual table setting would be to have approached the DoJ, and asking them to take a look.

Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

LOL...Have you (guys) read the transcript of the phone call...how many times did Trump tell Z. that he was going to get the DoJ (Barr) involved? The whistle blower even supported that. How is he not setting the table for the DoJ in the phone call?

That’s nice and all. But, I don’t care if he was juggling, or whistling dixie, or setting some invisible table with fictional nugs of corruption. And what he tells Z he’s “going to do” isn’t a thing with regard to engaging in the proper action. The relevant question is what he did, or did not do. He did not approach the DoJ and ask them to investigate. Why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

Also, are you backing off your earlier answer to the answer of the question which was that he didn't becasue their was not enough evidence?

Nope. That’s the reason why I believe that Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate, and the reason that you likely know is true, given that you can’t come within 30 feet of discussing it.

Your original answer to the mystery question was..."Great question. The answer is that Trump apparently perceived no need to do so, given the lack of any real evidence indicating corruption."

Yep. : )

Are you changing your mind?

Nope. : D

Tish's answer to the mystery question is ... "If an investigation by Ukraine had taken place, and it found evidence of criminal acts, what were the Ukrainians going to be able to do about it? Arrest the Bidens and try them in a Ukrainian court? A former Vice President? Do you think that would happen?"

Yep. That’s from a post.

Now, why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

Doc is just sitting on the porch parroting Jersey Girl who is waiting for one of you guys to tell her what the correct answer should be.

Nope.

I’m pretty damn sure that both Doc and Jersey Girl have long ago reached the same conclusion that Miss Tish and I have reached.

So ... why didn’t Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?

[_mikwut]

Hi Res,

Working all day. I'll get you back tomorrow. But sorry, no apologies will be had.

mikwut

[_Res Ipsa]

Hi Res,

Working all day. I'll get you back tomorrow. But sorry, no apologies will be had.

mikwut

You're not my monkey. Reply when and if you want. I'm not inclined to spend more time, because you've already tacitly conceded my primary point. The fact that you had to resort to disregarding the definition Congress specifically created for the statute and had to try and manufacture an ambiguity in what you claimed was plain and straightforward language by digging up a definition of a completely different term from a completely different statute is plenty of proof that the disdain and condescension with which you treated those who initially disagreed with you was completely unwarranted.