Impeachment hearings

[_subgenius]

...
Why were they asked to announce publicly that they were investigating the Bidens?

The motive behind a lawful action is irrelevant and is, in itself, not illegal.
But "hair-fire!"

[_Icarus]

See, now you guys know what I was talking about 20+ pages ago. He's this predictable and I think there should be a rule that makes it harder for trolls like him to intentionally sabotage what would otherwise be very informative, bookmark-worthy threads. Him and CeeBoo are the worst and you have to consider its intentional.

[_Icarus]

...
Why were they asked to announce publicly that they were investigating the Bidens?

The motive behind a lawful action is irrelevant and is, in itself, not illegal.
But "hair-fire!"

It is impeachable however. If a Mayor fires a policeman for giving him a speeding ticket, people like you would be all about "that's perfectly legal" so long as the Mayor was Republican.

[_canpakes]

...
Why were they asked to announce publicly that they were investigating the Bidens?

The motive behind a lawful action is irrelevant and is, in itself, not illegal.
But "hair-fire!"

I don’t think that anyone has suggested that Trump’s demand for Zelensky to publicly announce ‘investigations’ was illegal. It merely highlights Trump’s actual focus on clumsily and insecurely trying to publicly tarnish a political opponent.

So, how’re you doin’ these days with your hair-fire beliefs in the Clinton Kill List and pizza-parlor-basement-based child prostitute rings?

[_Markk]

Anyway, here's a better version of the timeline, prepared by actual journalists. It's long but informative.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66271/time ... rainegate/

Honor wrote...

If you mean you want to talk more about if Hunter Biden profited off of his last name, feel free.

I want to talk about and explore how Hunter profited period, and let the chips fall where they fall...let's see if he is innocent of any wrong doing, or if his involvement in the Ukraine does not warrant an investigation. You can equally make a point/case for Trump being dirty here and add to it, add the corruption of Manafort and relationship with Trumpin here also if you like, or maybe Tish can...lets try to be as objective as we can.

I just opened up your link, it is long, ...this should be a interesting story pole.

Here are the first entries I added to this as we go. I want to start with a few things that will come into play later, that I am sure the author of this timeline touches on.... I added the new time line entry in green, the black, quoted, will be from your link. Feel free to comment on anything I add here, especially if you believe it is incorrect and we can discuss why, or correct it.

*Mykola Zlochevsky (MK) co-founded Burisma

In 2002, he co-founded the largest independent oil and natural gas company Burisma Holdings with Ukrainian businessman Mykola Lisin [uk].[5][6] Through his sole ownership of Cyprus-registered Burisma Holdings, he owns the Ukrainian gas and oil producers Aldea, Pari, Esko-Pivnich, and the First Ukrainian Petroleum Company and the investment group Brociti Investments (Wiki)

*Joe biden elected Vice President 2008, he would later be given the point under the Obama administration to investigate corruption and take a lead in distributing Billions of dollars in aid, in both monies and loans to the Ukraine.

*In 2009, Hunter {Biben} established a series of small investment vehicles with his friend and business partner . Biden and Archer had been at Yale University together. They launched Rosemont Seneca Partners in partnership with Rosemont Capital, an investment vehicle backed by the Heinz family. Chris Heinz, stepson of then-senator John Kerry, had been roommates with Archer at Yale.41 Clearly, this would be an extremely well-connected firm in Washington, D.C.

Schweizer, Peter. Profiles in Corruption (pp. 54-55). Harper. Kindle Edition.

*July 2010... Mykola Zlochevsky (MK) appointed to first cabinet position in the Ukraine government

Mykola Zlochevsky served as Ecology and Natural Resources Minister during most

[color=#408000]* April 2012...Mykola Zlochevsky (MK) appointed to second cabinet position in the Ukraine government

he served as deputy secretary on National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) of the President of Ukraine Viktor Yanukovych.[1]

November 2013 – Political revolution in Ukraine

From the Time Line link ...Tens of thousands of Ukrainians begin protests in central Kyiv’s Independence Square (the “Maidan”) against the government of then-President Viktor Yanukovych. The protesters’ main concern is the government’s decision to abandon a planned “association agreement” with the European Union and to instead accept assistance from Russia. The protests grew to encompass broader concerns, especially about rampant corruption in Ukraine. The movement became known as the “Maidan Revolution” or the “Revolution of Dignity,” referring to the daily indignities Ukrainians suffered as a result of government corruption and ineptitude.

Markk's notes...

There was a lot of different concerns with Yanukovych (YK) and why the people wanted him gone...YK was dirty beyond belief, he was basically raping the country and taking what ever he wanted. Off shore account were being filled with Ukrainian monies, much of it foriegn aid, an dpretty much impossible to trace. He was a criminal and a "Kleptocrat". He appointed equally corrupt ministers. (See Bullough, Oliver. Moneyland (p. iii). St. Martin's Publishing Group. ). In reading about this from the book the author does a good job painting a mental picture of the extent of YK's corruption and criminal acts, it reads like a fictional novel.

Here is a brief example...

"Everyone had known that Yanukovich was a criminal, but they had never seen the extent of his haul. At a time when ordinary Ukrainians’ wealth had been stagnant for years, he had accumulated a fortune worth hundreds of millions of dollars, as had his closest friends. He had more money than he could ever have needed, as well as more treasures than rooms to store them.

All heads of state have palaces, but normally those palaces belong to the government, not to the individual. In the rare cases—Donald Trump, say—where the palaces are private property, they tend to have been acquired before the politician entered office. Yanukovich, however, had built his while living off a state salary, and that is why the protesters flocked to see his vast log cabin. They marveled at the edifice of the main building, the fountains, the waterfalls, the statues, the exotic pheasants. Enterprising locals rented bikes to visitors. The site was so large that there was no other way to see the whole place without exhaustion, and it took the revolutionaries days to explore all of its corners. The garages were an Aladdin’s cave of golden goods, some of them perhaps priceless. The revolutionaries called the curators of Kiev’s National Art Museum to take everything away before it got damaged, to preserve it for the nation, to put it on display.

There were piles of gold-painted candlesticks, walls full of portraits of the president. There were statues of Greek gods, and ivory carved into intricate oriental pagodas. There were dozens of icons, antique rifles and swords, and axes. There was a certificate declaring Yanukovich “Hunter of the Year,” and documents announcing that a star had been named in his honor, and another for his wife. Some of the objects were displayed alongside the business cards of the officials who had presented them to the president. They had been tribute to a ruler: down payments to ensure that the givers remained in Yanukovich’s favor and thus could continue to run the scams that had made them rich."

Bullough, Oliver. Moneyland (pp. 4-5). St. Martin's Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[_Markk]

Yes, I can answer the question in one freaking sentence using the words gaslight and smear in that one sentence which is something you've been unable to do in probably 14 pages ongoing by now!.

In Review...

Your answer is "gaslight and Smear"

Canpakes is "because there is not enough evidence"

I thought I understood (kinda) what Tish's was, ...i.e. something about handing Joe over to the Ukraine, but she said that was not it, so unless I missed it, I am not sure what her answer is.

Doc's answer is... that I'm a goldfish and a fat guy that really likes mustard

E.A. answer: "The reason it was important to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into Biden was because this would give enough legitimacy in mainstream US media to cover it as a major scandal to create a similar situation to Clinton “emails!” stories. Simply running ginned up pseudo-scandals through right wing media is sufficient to persuade people like Markk and create some disinformation in the public, but it doesn’t have the same potency as getting buy in from sources like CNN, New York Times, etc.

Trump didn’t go through the DoJ to manufacture the scandal because there is some risk of tainting the propaganda value there and there could be some institutional resistance to overcome. A seemingly independent foreign announcement is much cleaner. Now that the latter was exposed, the former is the next best thing."

My answer is...that he did not need to, in that, in my opinion, there is more than enough evidence that the Biden's were dirty in their dealings, and I have given pages of evidences I believe shows this.

Is this a fair review so far?

[_canpakes]

My answer is...that he did not need to, in that, in my opinion, there is more than enough evidence that the Biden's were dirty in their dealings, and I have given pages of evidences I believe shows this.

1. Why didn’t Trump have the DoJ investigate the Bidens, if he believed that they were dirty?

2. Why ask the leader of a foreign nation, instead, to publicly announce ‘investigations’?

Still, you’ve given no evidence that the Bidens were ‘dirty’. Claims against the ownership of Burisma do not equate to proof of anything illegal by any Biden.

[_Res Ipsa]

My answer is...that he did not need to, in that, in my opinion, there is more than enough evidence that the Biden's were dirty in their dealings, and I have given pages of evidences I believe shows this.

1. Why didn’t Trump have the DoJ investigate the Bidens, if he believed that they were dirty?

2. Why ask the leader of a foreign nation, instead, to publicly announce ‘investigations’?

Still, you’ve given no evidence that the Bidens were ‘dirty’. Claims against the ownership of Burisma do not equate to proof of anything illegal by any Biden.

Apparently, for the same reason a dog licks its balls.

[_Jersey Girl]

Yes, I can answer the question in one freaking sentence using the words gaslight and smear in that one sentence which is something you've been unable to do in probably 14 pages ongoing by now!

In Review...

Your answer is "gaslight and Smear"

No. That is not my answer. Read that ONE LINE sentence again. It's ONE freaking line.

[_Markk]

No. That is not my answer. Read that ONE LINE sentence again. It's ONE freaking line.

It is so far, at least that I have found...what is your full answer then?

Thanks