Impeachment hearings

[_schreech]

Then you need to prove somehow, the Biden's weren't worthy of an investigation.

Im not sure which is more idiotic and out of touch with reality, the above quote or the time when markkk claimed that Trump is a great businessman because he turned hundreds of millions, into "billions" over 4 decades - lol. The angry creamsicle claims to love the poorly educated, like markkk, and our resident trumplicans seem to fawn over Trumplethinskin.

"It’s sad that a presidential candidate would target America’s dullards, halfwits and dropouts as his primary voting bloc, however what’s even sadder is the fact that there are enough of them out there to sway a national election. And even once Trump is gone, they’ll still be out there, and they’ll still have the power to elect presidents, governors, senators and judges." - https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2019/2/8/1833224/-TRUMP-LOVES-THE-POORLY-EDUCATED

[_Markk]

Even if Biden was a candidate at the time (which he wasn't so there is no "crime," speculation is irrelevant in this case )

There's no statue providing guidance here that makes a distinction between whether someone has had a press conference to formally announce their candidacy or not. The principle at work is that it is wrong to pressure foreign governments to provide in-kind campaign assistance by harming political opponents, and it is especially wrong when that pressure comes in the form of withholding lawfully appropriated military aid. Joe Biden was reasonably understood to be a political opponent by anyone with a pulse when Trump did what he did. Pointing out he hadn't formally announced yet as a piece of exculpatory information is an attempt to mislead rubes like yourself. It's irrelevant, yet you are parroting that talking point verbatim.

One of the interesting side effects of this is you've managed to talk yourself into the position that so long as a candidate hasn't formally announced, the President is free to weaponize foreign influence to kill their candidacy in the crib and prevent them from becoming a opposition candidate. You are being made into an apologist for despots while you trip over yourself to defend a bad point.

You are not even reading what I wrote in any context.

My position is (in part), it does not matter if Biden was a candidate or not, what matters is whether or not there was enough evidence of corruption to warrant an investigation, due to his position as VP and investigating corruption himself in the Ukraine, while being charged with the distribution of billions (to the Ukraine and China). All the while while his son, and associates, including John Kerry’s son, were in deep with a company that was know to be corrupt.

You are simply wrong, and apparently did not read my last post to you. The fact, that Biden hadn’t announce his run, is just a rabbit trail fact. The burden of proof in regards to your assertion is that you would need to prove that Trump did what he did, solely to gain an election advantage, and a presumption of Biden running, especially after he said he was not going to, is a tough row to sow in proving that. But again, it does not matter either way if their is evidence to warrant an investigation of the Bidens.

I have asked folks over and over to address whether there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation of the Bidens, and you, along with the other duck the question and run from a conversation about this.

Please answer my question, and we can review the evidence that are available that I believe warrant an investigation.

[_canpakes]

Meanwhile ..

President Donald Trump’s new acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, used to do consulting work on behalf of an Eastern European oligarch who is now a fugitive and was recently barred from entering the U.S. under anti-corruption sanctions imposed last month by the State Department.

In 2016, Grenell wrote several articles defending the oligarch, a Moldovan politician named Vladimir Plahotniuc, but did not disclose that he was being paid, according to records and interviews. Grenell also did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which generally requires people to disclose work in the U.S. on behalf of foreign politicians.

FARA is the same law that Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates were convicted of violating. (Manafort went to trial. Gates pleaded guilty.)
It’s not clear whether the articles were directly part of Grenell’s paid consulting work for Plahotniuc. Unpaid work could still require disclosures under FARA if it was directed by or primarily benefited a foreign politician, according to Matthew Sanderson, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who advises people on complying with FARA. FARA contains several exemptions, such as for lawyers and businesses, Sanderson said, but none appear to apply to Grenell’s op-eds about Plahotniuc.
“There is real reason to believe that Mr. Grenell should have registered here,” Sanderson said after ProPublica described the circumstances to him. “This is exactly the type of circumstances I’d expect the Department of Justice to investigate further.”

Will Markk be concerned? Heck, no! Grenell's not a Democrat, so Mark's not concerned. He's only chasing the non-existent corruption of political rivals to Trump, not actual corruption.

That's why Markk can't answer the question, "Why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate" those Biden conspiracy claims. Because even Markk knows that's not where the real corruption is. ; )

[_EAllusion]

My position is (in part), it does not matter if Biden was a candidate or not...

Well, that's a position I've successfully talked you into. Yay me. Earlier, you on multiple occasions tried to may hay of the fact that Biden hadn't formally announced his candidacy prior to the beginning of the Trump pressure on Ukraine.

[Guest]

My position is (in part), it does not matter if Biden was a candidate or not...

Well, that's a position I've successfully talked you into. Yay me. Earlier, you on multiple occasions tried to may hay of the fact that Biden hadn't formally announced his candidacy prior to the beginning of the Trump pressure on Ukraine beginning.

LOL...are you that delusional...you did nothing of the sorts...it is funny how you guys are just falling apart and really have no answers.

How is my answer to you, talking me into anything...here is my answer...

Markk wrote...

"Then you need to prove somehow, the Biden's weren't worthy of an investigation. This was one of Alan Dershowitz' points. Even if Biden was a candidate at the time (which he wasn't so there is no "crime," speculation is irrelevant in this case ), and dirty, and even if Trump benefited from this politically, it is still justified. If I remember correctly he used Jefferson/Burr, and Nixon and someone else as precedence.

Was Hunter, and his business partners, doing business and being paid monies by a corrupt Ukrainian company, while Joe was VP and handing out Billions to the Ukraine, worthy of an investigation? That is a question no one here will touch, that I have asked umpteen times."

"You are not even reading what I wrote in any context.

My position is (in part), it does not matter if Biden was a candidate or not, what matters is whether or not there was enough evidence of corruption to warrant an investigation, due to his position as VP and investigating corruption himself in the Ukraine, while being charged with the distribution of billions (to the Ukraine and China). All the while while his son, and associates, including John Kerry’s son, were in deep with a company that was know to be corrupt.

You are simply wrong, and apparently did not read my last post to you. The fact, that Biden hadn’t announce his run, is just a rabbit trail fact. The burden of proof in regards to your assertion is that you would need to prove that Trump did what he did, solely to gain an election advantage, and a presumption of Biden running, especially after he said he was not going to, is a tough row to sow in proving that. But again, it does not matter either way if their is evidence to warrant an investigation of the Bidens.

I have asked folks over and over to address whether there is enough evidence to warrant an investigation of the Bidens, and you, along with the other duck the question and run from a conversation about this."

Please answer my question, and we can review the evidences that are available that I believe warrant an investigation.

You are ducking my questions and ignoring what I am saying. You are in place of panic I guess, you absolutely do not know how to deal with Trump's success, and lefts current meltdown.

Please answer my questions EA...

[_Markk]

Meanwhile ..

President Donald Trump’s new acting intelligence director, Richard Grenell, used to do consulting work on behalf of an Eastern European oligarch who is now a fugitive and was recently barred from entering the U.S. under anti-corruption sanctions imposed last month by the State Department.

In 2016, Grenell wrote several articles defending the oligarch, a Moldovan politician named Vladimir Plahotniuc, but did not disclose that he was being paid, according to records and interviews. Grenell also did not register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, which generally requires people to disclose work in the U.S. on behalf of foreign politicians.

FARA is the same law that Trump’s former campaign manager Paul Manafort and former deputy campaign manager Rick Gates were convicted of violating. (Manafort went to trial. Gates pleaded guilty.)
It’s not clear whether the articles were directly part of Grenell’s paid consulting work for Plahotniuc. Unpaid work could still require disclosures under FARA if it was directed by or primarily benefited a foreign politician, according to Matthew Sanderson, a lawyer at Caplin & Drysdale who advises people on complying with FARA. FARA contains several exemptions, such as for lawyers and businesses, Sanderson said, but none appear to apply to Grenell’s op-eds about Plahotniuc.
“There is real reason to believe that Mr. Grenell should have registered here,” Sanderson said after ProPublica described the circumstances to him. “This is exactly the type of circumstances I’d expect the Department of Justice to investigate further.”

Will Markk be concerned? Heck, no! Grenell's not a Democrat, so Mark's not concerned. He's only chasing the non-existent corruption of political rivals to Trump, not actual corruption.

That's why Markk can't answer the question, "Why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate" those Biden conspiracy claims. Because even Markk knows that's not where the real corruption is. ; )

Why didn't you print out the whole article or leave a link? Maybe,, ya think, the attorneys response would add a different light to the article...

https://www.propublica.org/article/trum ... corruption

But hey, I will support a investigation if it gets to that point, but at least provide an accurate or full quote of you accusation and assertion.

Are you ready to answer my questions yet about Biden, again you are just saying nuh uh?

[_EAllusion]

Please answer my question, and we can review the evidences that are available that I believe warrant an investigation.

You are ducking my questions and ignoring what I am saying. You are in place of panic I guess, you absolutely do not know how to deal with Trump's success, and lefts current meltdown.

Please answer my questions EAllusion...

Evidences is a term for apologetics. FYI. I'm not going to answer your questions, because I think you are up in the night and have noticed you've already had several people in this thread offer detailed sources explaining why your belief in a manufactured scandal is misplaced. You didn't absorb anything they said, so why would I be any different?

I guess I did get you to drop one minor talking point, so that does put me in the persuade Markk lead. Still, it's not enough.

[_Icarus]

Please answer my question, and we can review the evidences that are available that I believe warrant an investigation.

You are ducking my questions and ignoring what I am saying. You are in place of panic I guess, you absolutely do not know how to deal with Trump's success, and lefts current meltdown.

Please answer my questions EAllusion...

Evidences is a term for apologetics. FYI. I'm not going to answer your questions, because I think you are up in the night and have noticed you've already had several people in this thread offer detailed sources explaining why your belief in a manufactured scandal is misplaced. You didn't absorb anything they said, so why would I be any different?

I guess I did get you to drop one minor talking point, so that does put me in the persuade Markk lead. Still, it's not enough.

[_Markk]

EA wrote: Evidences is a term for apologetics. FYI. I'm not going to answer your questions, because I think you are up in the night and have noticed you've already had several people in this thread offer detailed sources explaining why your belief in a manufactured scandal is misplaced. You didn't absorb anything they said, so why would I be any different?

I guess I did get you to drop one minor talking point, so that does put me in the persuade Markk lead. Still, it's not enough.

Huh, what are you even talking about...no one here except for Honor has even tried to engage me in honest conversation.

You are not going to answer my questions because you are so bipartisan and have acute TDS. My questions are relevant to both the articles of impeachment, and by default the whistle blower complaint.

Your answer here is such a cop out.

[_canpakes]

Your answer here is such a cop out.

Your answer to, "Why didn't Trump ask the DoJ to investigate?", right?