Impeachment hearings

[_honorentheos]

Trump wanted help from a person that might be able to give information of where our taxpayer monies might be going and mishandled, it is not rocket science.

That's not accurate. Trump wanted the Ukraine to investigate two things. The first was to look into the conspiracy theory that Ukrainians had worked to undermine his presidential campaign. That was largely built on false claims sown by Russian operatives deflecting from their own actions by claiming the firm Democrats retained to investigate the hack into their emails - Crowdstrike - has a secret Clinton serve. This false story is that this secret non-existent server contains the missing Clinton emails and they are being kept hidden because they are damning. It's a cooked up fake story. It's also combined with the very real fact a member of his campaign (Manafort) was exposed as having received corrupt money from corrupt President Yanukovych which has been recast into theories journalists in Ukraine were framing Manafort to hurt Trump and help Clinton. It's all BS.

Link regarding Crowdstrike: https://www.politifact.com/article/2019 ... ring-his-/

The second was he had been fed information from Giuliani that Joe Biden was guilty of bribing Ukrainian leadership to benefit Biden's son's client so he was asking the Ukraine to publicly investigate Joe Biden.

In neither is Trump's concern about public funds being misused. They are both aimed at his own personal political interests. It takes projection to read into his statements that he was interested in protecting the American taxpayer. Mostly he talks like a child calling people bad, and what they did bad.

I am not sure what "public statement " you are talking about, and if you can give me a link, so I understand the context of what you are asking, I will certainly answer your question.

Trump wanted a public statement made that the Ukraine was investigating Joe Biden. It was actually scheduled to happen but when the whistleblower story broke, the aid was released and the CNN interview cancelled.

Trump asked Z. to give "us" information on the possibility that a sitting VP, who was in charge of rooting out corruption, was actually corrupt, based on many of the the evidences, and more that I have laid out here, that you duck and probably haven't even read. Like, why was the VP's son working for a known gangster/mobster, and corrupt goverment official that was funneling millions from his own goverment, which much of which was foreign aid, all the while the VP was in charge of giving out the much of that foreign aid.

Biden wasn't tasked with rooting out corruption. He was assigned managing US relations with Ukraine for the executive branch. It was a diplomatic and foreign relations assignment. You keep misrepresenting this by asking who the US assigned to investigate Ukraine where you think the answer is Joe Biden but that's an ignorant, poorly understood portrayal of Biden's responsibilities. You should stop putting it that way.

As to Hunter Biden, he clearly was hired onto the board of directors for Burisma because his last name and connections were viewed as providing Bursima and it's president with some protection or benefits. Hunter certainly benefited from it in what is an unfortunate but common shady aspect of how connections and influence are abused.

But that's not the same as saying Hunter Biden was successfully able to influence his dad and US policy to actually do things that were not in US interests but were in the interest of Burisma. And that's critical.

For the last time, Biden wasn't using US aid to benefit Hunter. He presented the US position that LOAN GUARANTEES were being withheld unless they removed the corrupt PG Shokin. Shokin was so corrupt there were active protests in the streets before this seeking his removal as well as an assassination attempt. He was corrupt as “F”. His claiming he was just about to start an investigation into Burisma before being sacked is BS. His deputy has verified this. His replacement has verified this. The anti-corruption organizations in Ukraine have verified this. Everyone who isn't tied up in his corruption or trying to seek to help Trump out have verified Shokin was corrupt, not investigating Burisma but instead holding up the investigation, and that his removal hurt the president of Burisma rather than helped him.

Jesus Christ, man. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you to have it sink in?

[_Chap]

LOL.

There. I saved time for Markk.

[_canpakes]

By your ducking my questions just shows you can't answer them. I am just making a point, I don't really expect answers from most of you guys, that is why I refer to you as clones often. You are incapable of objective conversation. By your not being able to answer questions simple shows this.

I just answered your question in the previous post. Now you’re just pretending that you can’t read. : )

Why would Trump need to ask Zelensky to look into any corruption claim, or make a public announcement about same, given your response to the question put to you about why Trump did not engage our own DoJ?

Trump wanted help from a person that might be able to give information of where our taxpayer monies might be going and mishandled...

That statement doesn’t jive with the timeline you want to push, for the ex-VP and Zelensky. You know that; why try to pretend otherwise?

I am not sure what "public statement " you are talking about, and if you can give me a link, so I understand the context of what you are asking, I will certainly answer your question.

Unlike your own claims, you can find information about this literally everywhere. Google is your friend; use it. Here’s a random link:

https://theintercept.com/2019/11/21/son ... omat-says/

From the article:

“The two diplomats (Sondland and Volker), who exchanged calls and text messages with Giuliani all summer, worked with the president’s lawyer on the text of a statement Trump wanted Ukraine’s president to deliver on CNN, in which he would announce investigations of Burisma and supposed Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election.”

So, now you can answer my question directly, yes?

As to "why he did not engage the DoJ" is just a dumb question, you guys can't even agree there is a concrete answer to, or expound in any way, on anything other than identity politics.

I’m pretty sure that everyone else here agrees that the request was a partisan effort by the President to publicly suggest that the ex-VP did ‘something wrong’ (wink!) and to and attempt to tarnish Biden’s image, considering that the President repeatedly insisted on naming only Biden personally. Trump mentioned no other companies or players within the entire scope of possible corruption targets ... Trump only mentioned the one fellow who was a potential election challenger.

On the other hand, you’ve dodged the question of why Trump - if this was such an overbearing legitimate concern - didn’t engage this Nation’s official and proper channels to look into the public accusations that he was making. You absolutely will not offer an answer as to why that was the case, because doing so doesn’t comport with your - how did you put it? - “identity politics”. So you keep dodging and dancing around that question, to avoiding having to consider the obvious answer.

Trump asked Z. to give "us" information on the possibility that a sitting VP, who was in charge of rooting out corruption, was actually corrupt, based on many of the the evidences, and more that I have laid out here, that you duck and probably haven't even read.

I’ve read it. I also note that there’s a difference between asking a foreign leader to investigate their own issues, and asking a foreign leader to publicly announce ‘investigations’ into a particular company and relating to a particular Presidential challenger.

Like, why was the VP's son working for a known gangster/mobster, and corrupt goverment official that was funneling millions from his own goverment, which much of which was foreign aid,

Does a corrupted corporate head imply that every person below him is also engaging in corruption? If that’s your criteria, you’d better queue up for investigations into Jared Kushner’s company, and by extension/connection, the Trump family. But, I’m thinkin’ that you’ll just look the other way on that one, because of your partisan bent. ; )

whether you like it or not, or whether you are capable to understand how someone might see a VP sons working for a corrupt goverment officail who is stealing money that the VP is handing out, as troubling.

You’ve got a few problems here, first being that you can’t even point to a connection to any aid, and Burisma.

The second is that you can’t point to any aim of Burisma’s head reflecting on Hunter Biden.

Third is that there’s no connection between Hunter Biden’s position, and the ex-Vp’s involvement with an aid package authored and authorized by Congress.

Here’s a quote for you:

"I believe the only reason Burisma and Zlochevsky were inviting people with such names was to whitewash their reputation and to present themselves as a company doing legitimate business in Ukraine," says Daria Kaleniuk, head of the nongovernmental Anti-Corruption Action Center in Kyiv.”

That sounds like a sensible assessment. Yet, even ignoring the fact that reputation is a pretty common reason for board member selections for many companies, there is still no connection between Zlochevsky’s action, and Biden’s position. In fact, it would have been to Zlochevsky’s benefit for Biden to be as proper and upstanding in his work with Burisma as possible, in order to make Zlochevsky appear as legit as possible.

Those three problems speak to why Trump didn’t ask the DoJ to investigate “the Biden’s” - because he knows that the DoJ would have to consider it as a baseless, partisan request.

And it’s also why Trump tried to hold aid to Ukraine hostage in an attempt to get that country to publicly announce ‘investigations’ that wouldn’t hold water within our own system.

But, you can’t offer an alternate response to either question, because you know that the facts above speak to one conclusion - the one immediately above; the one that you wont dare discuss. ; )

[_Res Ipsa]

It’s critical to understand the nature of the corruption Zlochevsky is accused of. He was twice appointed to government office by the pro-Russian president who looted the country’s treasury and then ran back to Moscow. Zlochevsky was accused of (1) Awarding his own company a bunch of mining licenses; and (2) looting the treasury. Hunter joined the board a couple years after Z was kicked out of the government.

[_Res Ipsa]

Well, we don’t need an answer from Markk anymore. The attorney general himself answered it during his ABC interview:

“If he were to say go investigate somebody, and you sense it’s because they’re a political opponent, then an attorney general shouldn’t carry that out, wouldn’t carry that out,” Barr said.

[_canpakes]

Well, we don’t need an answer from Markk anymore. The attorney general himself answered it during his ABC interview:

“If he were to say go investigate somebody, and you sense it’s because they’re a political opponent, then an attorney general shouldn’t carry that out, wouldn’t carry that out,” Barr said.

I suppose it sucks to be in Markk’s position, trying to claim that a Biden is guilty of corruption when the guy that Markk supports actually hired known corrupt individuals associated with Ukraine and is even now interfering with the DoJ to protect convicted friends.

Yep, those Trump voters and their ‘concern about corruption’. Riggghhtt. ; )

[_EAllusion]

Yep, those Trump voters and their ‘concern about corruption’. Riggghhtt. ; )

It's a fairly close equivalent to Republican obsession over the Clinton Foundation that was a fake scandal that nonetheless was able to get people like Markk fired up. The idea was, after drawing some dubious connections and combining it with innuendo and handwaving, Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) were soliciting donations to their charity as an influence peddling scheme in order to lavishly benefit from the donations. In reality, the Clinton Foundation was an excellent charity and while there probably was influence peddling in the form wealthy donors getting access that is pervasive in global politics, there wasn't a buying of favors as was believed or implied by those pushing the scandal. The issue was more nuanced and in actuality just gave the appearance of a light form of impropriety that is commonplace. Meanwhile, Donald Trump was running a charity as a tax fraud scheme that was literally taking from the needy to fund his personal vanity. Yet nary a concern from the "Zomg! Clinton Foundation!" crowd.

The parallel is strong. Trump's blatant severe corruption is ignored to go after poorly thought out conspiracy theory against one of his enemies similar to what Trump is actually doing, when in actuality the real story is a form of sleaziness that is commonplace and not at all what they think it is.

[_moksha]

Jesus Christ, man. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you to have it sink in?

Could it be that Markk is a peddler of disinformation and that the truth does not suit that purpose?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Jesus Christ, man. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you to have it sink in?

Could it be that Markk is a peddler of disinformation and that the truth does not suit that purpose?

Nah. He's this guy:



- Doc

[_honorentheos]

Jesus Christ, man. How many times does that need to be spelled out for you to have it sink in?

Could it be that Markk is a peddler of disinformation and that the truth does not suit that purpose?

He is sincere.